WSWRA News

Renewable Energy Projects Cause Conflicts

2009-09-30T11:10:00.000-07:00

WATER: Renewable energy projects cause conflict (09/30/2009)

Increasing reliance on renewable energy, from solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.
"When push comes to shove, water could become the real throttle on renewable energy," said Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor at the University of Texas in Austin who studies the relationship between energy and water.

Southwestern states are confronting this issue head on as dozens of multibillion-dollar solar power plants are planned for thousands of acres of desert.

Meanwhile, California lawmakers are debating a bill that would allow renewable energy power plants to use drinking water for cooling under certain conditions.

"By allowing projects to use fresh water, the bill would remove any incentives that developers have to use technologies that minimize water use," said Terry O'Brien, a California Energy Commission deputy director (Todd Woody, New York Times, Sept. 30). -- JK

Senate EPW Committee Once Worked Together

2009-09-29T09:29:00.000-07:00

CLIMATE: Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans worked together on the Senate EPW panel Darren Samuelsohn, E&E senior reporter

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer presides over an Environment and Public Works Committee considered about as partisan as a panel can get.

Ideological differences among the committee's Democrats and Republicans are evident every time the panel meets, creating a political dynamic that raises big questions about the fate of climate change legislation that Boxer and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to unveil tomorrow.

Historically, the EPW Committee is known for its bipartisan accomplishments, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. But experts agree that the committee's upcoming and far-reaching effort on global warming will take place in a much different political atmosphere.

In a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, Boxer underscored that partisan divide when she attacked a Republican-led effort aimed at halting U.S. EPA climate regulations for a year.

"The interesting thing is most of these environmental laws started with a Republican president named Richard Nixon," Boxer said. "What happened to the days when environmental laws were supported on both sides? Those days appear to be gone."
Disputes in the EPW Committee start at the top. Ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), himself a former chairman, regularly questions his Democratic counterpart's agenda with outspoken skepticism of climate change science and claims that a bill restricting greenhouse gas emissions would be a disaster for the U.S. economy.

The Senate EPW Committee, a timeline
Year Action
1838 Senate creates Committee on Public Buildings.
1947 Renamed Committee on Public Works.
1970 Passes Clean Air Act.
1972 Passes Clean Water Act.
1977 Name changed to Environment and Public Works Committee.
1990 Passes Clean Air Act amendments.
2000 Passes Everglades restoration legislation.
2007 Leads first congressional override of a President George W. Bush veto -- on Water Resources Development Act.

At a recent hearing, Inhofe and Boxer had an exchange emblematic of their unusual relationship, which the two senators themselves often describe as "friendly" when policy and politics are not involved.

Inhofe first declared that the Democrats' 12-7 advantage over Republicans meant Boxer should have little trouble moving a bill through committee, but the Oklahoma senator then promised to still lead the charge in killing the bill once it gets to the Senate floor.

Furthermore, Inhofe ticked off a list of reasons for why he thinks a Senate climate bill would not reduce domestic dependence on foreign oil and won't cut global temperatures -- two key reasons why Boxer and her allies want to pass the legislation.

"And when it's all said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it," Inhofe said. "Thank you, Madame Chairman. On that happy note ..."
"You really started my day off with such excitement," Boxer said, cutting him off. That drew Inhofe's quick reply: "That's not the first time."

'A strong and cherished tradition of bipartisanship'

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hasn't always been this way.
History books detail how Democrats, Republicans and members from other early American political parties made a habit on the committee of working together on legislation overseeing the nation's government buildings and day-to-day operations.
First known as the Committee on Public Buildings, the panel authorized overtime pay for White House staff following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, helped get electricity installed in the Senate and later signed off on the construction of the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House.
Environmental issues first appeared on the committee's radar in the 1960s, well before it had the words formally inscribed in its title in 1977.

There were often disagreements. But former staffers, senators and lobbyists say that committee leaders like Sens. Jennings Randolph (D-W.Va.), George Mitchell (D-Maine), Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), Ed Muskie (D-Maine), John Chafee (R-R.I.) and Robert Stafford (R-Vt.) still worked together to produce the country's modern environmental laws, from the the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act to the Clean Air Act of 1970 and 1990.

Sen. Ed Muskie (D-Maine) never chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. But he served as one of its most senior members during a Senate career that lasted from 1959 until his 1980 appointment as secretary of State.

"Those are all huge accomplishments," said Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who, in 1990, served as the Sierra Club's lead air pollution lobbyist. "They basically invented the basic architecture of our environmental safeguards."

Former staffers recall their bosses pushed them to find agreements across the aisle.
"There was a culture that developed on the committee, between Democrats and Republicans and among staff, people interested in trying to do the right thing," said Bob Hurley, a top Republican committee staffer from 1980 to 1990. "That's not to say there were no differences in approaches. But there was always that extra effort."

For business lobbyists, the tight relationship among EPW Committee members made it difficult to deploy a "divide and conquer" strategy that could get the majority and minority staffs arguing. "It was very hard to separate people," Hurley said.
"We didn't just have a staff draft bill, show it to the committee, have them vote it up or down and put it on the floor," added Leon Billings, a longtime Muskie aide who served as the Democratic staff director of EPW's Environmental Pollution Subcommittee from 1966 to 1978. "We'd have 30 to 40 subcommittee and full committee markups."

In a 1988 history of the EPW Committee, Chairman Quentin Burdick (D-N.D.) and Stafford, then the ranking member, wrote, "The nature of the work and the dedication of its membership have enabled the Committee on Environment and Public Works to develop a strong and cherished tradition of bipartisanship. Through this approach we are able to address issues on their merits and resolve questions on the basis of what is best for the Nation."

The fall of GOP moderates
So what happened?

Many longtime EPW Committee observers can trace the end of bipartisanship and dealmaking to a series of events in the early to mid-1990s, when conservative GOP leaders put the screws on their own crop of moderates.

Chafee lost his re-election bid as chairman of the Senate Republican conference in 1990 to the more conservative Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi. And many of the Republicans who had worked on those capstone environmental laws -- including Sens. David Durenberger of Minnesota, Al Simpson of Wyoming and Stafford -- were no longer serving in the Senate by the mid-1990s.

Consider the EPW Committee's Republican roster after the party won control of the Senate in the November 1994 elections. Chafee became the chairman, but behind him were several new committee members with a much more conservative mindset, including Sens. Inhofe, Craig Thomas of Wyoming, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Bob Bennett of Utah.

"I disagreed with Chafee more than I agreed with him," Inhofe recalled.
For Chafee and the dwindling number of moderate Republicans, it was a rough ride as the party's leadership tried to undermine the Clinton administration and their legitimate bipartisan efforts to pass legislation. For example, a bid to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, which had support from then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and both Democratic and GOP Western senators, did not get beyond the EPW Committee.

"It was a very tough time to be there, trying to be a leader on these issues and you turn around and no one is following you," said Steve Shimberg, a Republican EPW Committee staffer from 1981-1997, the last seven years of which he served as Chafee's committee staff director. "In fact, they're building an army against you."

Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) served as the EPW Committee's ranking member from 1989-1994. He chaired the committee from 1995 until his death in 1999.
"He basically got a fist in the dike and kept it there," Billings added.
Former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) took over as chairman of the EPW Committee in late 1999 following Chafee's death. For Smith, the promotion meant a platform to shepherd Everglades restoration legislation into law with the help of the Clinton administration, an effort that is considered by many to be the last big environmental bill to make it all the way to a president's desk.

Smith said in an interview that he was able to win over GOP leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers in a way Chafee could not. "When I said something about the Everglades or some other environmental issue, they couldn't just throw it aside," Smith said.

The George W. Bush era

Smith briefly kept hold of the EPW Committee's gavel during President George W. Bush's first term in 2001. But six months in, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont accused Bush of backtracking on key education and environmental campaign pledges. Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent, a move that flipped Senate control into the Democrats' hands and further inflamed partisan tensions.

Democrats rewarded Jeffords by giving him the chairmanship of the EPW Committee, and the party repeatedly used the panel to challenge the Bush administration on environmental issues. Then, in 2002, Jeffords narrowly passed out of committee a bill that would have limited both conventional air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who faced his own tough re-election bid that year, was the lone Democrat to vote against the bill. He joined a united Republican Party against the climate legislation and Democratic leaders never brought it up on the Senate floor. "There clearly was some effort to stand hard because of Jeffords trying to push that through," Smith recalled.

Both parties stayed in their respective corners on environmental issues under Inhofe, who took over when the Republicans regained the Senate in 2003. Environmentalists despised the Oklahoman for his declaration that man-made global warming was "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
And Inhofe antagonized them more with hearings critical of the media's coverage of the issue, as well as by extending an invitation to Michael Crichton, the late science fiction writer who had written a novel depicting global warming as something concocted by environmentalists.

Looking back on Inhofe's tenure, former aides see a time when much was accomplished whenever the committee returned to its traditional jurisdictional issues, including transportation and water resources. "He really enjoyed getting into the nitty gritty of the highway formula," said Andrew Wheeler, a former EPW Committee staff director.
Boxer's rise to the chairmanship in 2006 -- the first for a Californian since Republican Sen. Leland Stanford in the late 19th century -- pushed the committee even further down the partisan road. While sources on both sides of the aisle are quick to note that she did team up with Inhofe in 2007 to override Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act -- a first for Congress during that administration, that was largely a blip on the radar.

The EPW Committee under Boxer has held dozens of hearings on global warming, but none yet have been dedicated to the nuances of the cap-and-trade program that the panel is considering passing this fall.

One former Senate GOP aide said Boxer had already established her reputation as a partisan flame thrower while serving as a back-bench Democrat on the committee. The staffer recalled Boxer often arriving on the Senate floor for speeches just as the West Coast evening newscasts were getting ready to air.

"It was like clockwork," the former aide said. "She seemed more interested in promoting herself than getting the work done. Those kinds of reputations linger. It's very hard to overcome them, even as you age and mellow. That impression is the one that sticks."

Smith, who lost his own re-election bid in the 2002 New Hampshire Republican primary, said Boxer made it more difficult for herself this year when she chastised Army Corps of Engineers Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh during a hearing for calling her "ma'am" instead of senator.

"That hurt her badly among a lot of people," said Smith, who is now flirting with an independent bid for the Florida seat now held by Sen. George LeMieux (R). "You have a responsibility there, sometimes larger than your own view."

Asked to size up the Senate EPW Committee in 2009, Inhofe acknowledged, "I'd say it's been pretty dysfunctional this year."

24/7 news, environmental politics

There are other explanations too beyond the personalities.
As a whole, the Senate Republican caucus has seen its moderate ranks diminish ever since the early 1990s. Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) replaced his father upon his death in 1999 but lost a re-election bid in 2006 to Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a longtime EPW Committee member, did not show much interest in environmental issues until the end of his career, when he co-authored a climate bill with Boxer and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

"John Warner was the last of his breed," said Weiss with the Center for American Progress. These days, Republicans count only a handful of moderates within their ranks, starting with the two Mainers. "If Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins wanted to get on that committee, they wouldn't be able to," Weiss added.

Elsewhere, many say environmental politics weigh heavily on the committee's dynamics, especially as national green groups take a more prominent role fundraising and campaigning on behalf of their chosen candidates. By doing that, Wheeler said, "You're obviously going to politicize the business of the committee."
Current and former senators and their aides also see the chamber in a different light than the fruitful period of the 1960s and 1970s when the bulk of the nation's environmental laws were written.

"When you're only here Tuesday through Thursday and all of your time here during the day is down the hall dialing for dollars, that says to me it's pretty hard building relationships," said Shimberg, who now works as an attorney at DLA Piper.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) served on the EPW Committee from 1983 until his first retirement in 2001. He came back to the Senate -- and the committee -- in 2003. These days, Lautenberg said the 24/7 news cycle and growth in the American population have something to do with the strained politics of Capitol Hill.
"We live in a world that's gotten at a much faster pace," Lautenberg said. "When you're moving at these speeds, things happen. There is a degree of rudeness that comes in in getting things done."

The current EPW Committee roster only adds to the partisanship as some of the party's most strident voices push for seats on the committee. And there is also the Democrats' 12-7 majority, the largest ever for one party over another on the modern day EPW Committee. That is a big enough lead that the committee leaders do not need to worry about the votes from Republicans, or even moderate Democrats like Baucus and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, if they want to pass a bill.
"It's tough," Smith said. "You have to recognize if you're one of the seven Republicans, there's nothing you can do to stop anything. ... What else can you do? You become basically an obstructionist."

A current Senate Republican staffer said another part of the partisan problem is Boxer's plan to move such a sweeping piece of legislation.

"If you do things on a smaller, case-by-case basis, do the work in the weeds, you get more compromises," the aide said. "If you do sweeping, mind-blowing, thousand-page bills, of course it's going to cause major strife between the members. It's going to become political. It's going to become more of a theater, circus-like atmosphere."

And then there is also the fact that the committee's two leaders -- Boxer and Inhofe -- represent extremes from within their own party. And they in turn set the tone for other members of the committee, a mood that makes it difficult for moderate Democrats and Republicans to capture 60 votes and pass the climate bill.

"It'd be fair to say that the Boxer-Inhofe relationship is defined or defines the general GOP-Democratic relationship in the Senate and in the countryside," Billings said. "I think that Inhofe very definitely reflects the base of the Republican Party. And I think [Boxer] reflects the base of the Democratic Party. I don't think either one of them gives a damn about the middle of either party because they don't have to."

Reclamation Launches Basin Studies

2009-09-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

WATER: Reclamation launches basin study program to plan for future challenges
April Reese, E&E reporter

With climate change, population growth and the needs of endangered species stressing water supplies in the West like never before, the Bureau of Reclamation has launched a new program aimed at studying some of the West's hardest-hit basins to help prepare them for the unprecedented challenges that lie ahead.

Last week, Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor announced the first three basins to receive federal funding under the agency's new Basin Study Program: the Colorado River Basin, the Yakima River Basin in Washington, and the Milk and St. Mary river systems in Montana. Reclamation will provide $1 million for the Colorado River Basin study, which will quantify supply and demand; $1.3 million for the Yakima project, which will focus on infrastructure restoration; and $350,000 for the Milk and St. Mary study, which will explore how to meet future needs. All three grants will be augmented by matching funds from states, local governments and tribes.

All of the studies will measure existing supplies and determine whether water supply infrastructure is sufficient to meet future demands. The studies will also include recommendations on how to optimize operations to supply adequate water and power while accounting for environmental values, according to Reclamation.

The two-year studies will "help lead us down the road to adaptation strategies," Connor said during an address to the Colorado River Symposium, held in Santa Fe, N.M., last week. Given the shrunken snowpacks, earlier runoff and more severe storms and droughts that are expected to beleaguer the West as a result of climate change, it is important to understand how much water is available now and how to manage those supplies to meet future demands, he said.

The new Basin Study Program is part of a larger effort within Reclamation and the Interior Department to meet water needs for both people and wildlife in the face of climate change and population growth, Connor noted. He added that it is also a key part of Reclamation's implementation of the SECURE Water Act, which was passed as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

"It's unclear whether our usage and management is sustainable," he said. "That's what I see Reclamation's role is moving forward: [providing] certainty and sustainability."

Connor's Sept. 17 announcement came on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's signing of an order earlier in the week outlining the department's strategy for addressing the current and future impacts of climate change on the country's natural resources, including water.

Connor said he hopes the basin studies will provide a model for how to assess available supplies and how to respond to the inevitable changes that will place new demands on river basins. Reclamation has asked for another $4 million in Interior's 2010 budget request to fund more basin studies next year, Connor said. "There are a lot of river basins out there" that need such studies, he said.

The three basins awarded funds were chosen from more than two-dozen letters of interest amounting to about $10 million in requested funding.
Praise for the basin-level approach
Tony Willardson, executive director of the Western States Water Council, a project of the Western Governors' Association that focuses on water issues, commended Reclamation for taking a basin-level approach to addressing the unprecedented demands on water supplies.

"Instead of the federal government addressing a problem here and a problem there, they're looking at the whole basin and trying to get ahead of the game," Willardson said.

Reclamation chose the Colorado, Yakima and Milk and St. Mary basins because they face some of the most pressing water challenges and all need to be better studied. For instance, the Colorado River Basin provides water across seven states for 27 million people -- up from 25 million just a few years ago -- but there are significant data gaps in how the basin's water is used and how its supplies can be stretched to meet future needs. It is also one of the regions that will be hit hardest by climate change.

And in the Yakima River Basin, one of the most intensively irrigated basins in the United States, aging infrastructure has managers worried about the reliability of the system, as well as whether existing supplies there will be adequate down the road.

The potential failure of that system, built in the early 1900s, "has implications for the farmers there but also environmental and social impacts," Willardson said. Two fish species in the basin are listed under the Endangered Species Act: bull trout and mid-Columbia steelhead.

In the Milk and St. Mary river systems, which extend into Canada, managers face a tangle of issues relating to changing natural flows, leaking diversion facilities, international commitments and requirements for bull trout.
With all three basins already grappling with huge challenges, the basin studies will be crucial in determining how they will continue to provide water for people and wildlife in a climate-altered future, Willardson said.

"We really don't have a good idea how much more water we'll be using," he said. "So we need to look at water policies in the West and look at growth, climate change and demand now."

Kittitas Well Situation Awaits AG Opinion

2009-09-17T08:41:00.000-07:00

State AG ruling awaited to settle regulation of Kittitas wellsby David Lester
Yakima Herald-Republic

YAKIMA, Wash. -- Kittitas County commissioners and the state Department of Ecology have resigned themselves to waiting for an attorney general's opinion on the authority of the state and the county to regulate exempt wells in the upper county.

While the wait may not be long -- the opinion could come out any day -- any chance for a rapid end to a two-month moratorium on new wells collapsed last week after a flurry of back-and-forth proposals between Commissioner Paul Jewell and Ecology Director Jay Manning.

"I really thought we were moving in a positive direction to get an agreement," Jewell said. "Once again, when it came to making a decision, Ecology was unwilling to move forward."

At issue are the unpermitted wells builders and property owners have been using over the last several decades to tap into groundwater to build new homes in north Kittitas County. State officials worry that there's not enough water to accommodate the newcomers and senior water rights users, but Kittitas County commissioners aren't convinced there's a problem.

Exempt wells, which don't require a state permit, have been allowed since the state groundwater code was adopted in 1945. Such wells include those for homes, a half-acre lawn and garden, industrial use and watering livestock.

Among its latest proposals, Kittitas County commissioners offered to adopt a new ordinance that would prohibit new lawns and gardens unless an irrigation district supplied the water. An owner could also irrigate lawns and gardens by purchasing a senior water right as mitigation.

But disagreement on how soon owners would be required to obtain an existing water right to make up for the new use doomed a possible agreement on that issue.

Tom Tebb, the agency's regional director in Yakima, said the agency was concerned the county wouldn't be able to adopt the ordinance on lawns and gardens for more than a month. Coupling the adoption delay with the county's request to lift the moratorium within two weeks would leave a gap in protection for groundwater.

The county also wanted to delay the mitigation requirement until the water exchange program is fully operational.

Tebb said the county's proposals would not have protected senior water rights and stream flows from being affected by the drilling of new exempt wells.

Jewell said the talks appear to be at a standstill. And now, both sides are waiting to hear from Attorney General Rob McKenna. An opinion was expected this week.

Kittitas County and the Department of Ecology have submitted questions to the attorney general about the state's legal authority to restrict exempt wells and whether county officials can adopt land-use regulations that set limits on water use, as Ecology is requesting.

One of the proposals from the state is to combine two of the exemptions -- for homes and outdoor use -- into one category, and that the water use for that exemption would be limited to less than 5,000 gallons per day.

Ecology imposed an emergency rule in July that prohibited new wells in the north end of the county west and north of Indian John Hill because of a belief that a water management agreement with Kittitas County could not be reached.

The ban has been criticized for damaging an already weak economy by halting construction of new homes.

The Department of Ecology has sought to soften the blow by launching a water exchange program under which property owners can purchase a senior water right to offset, or mitigate, their new use of water. The source for the mitigation water are rights purchased by Suncadia, the massive mountain resort near Cle Elum.

Suncadia purchased nearly 500 acre-feet of water to be left in streams under a requirement imposed by Ecology.

The water exchange Web site began operation Aug. 31.

* David Lester can be reached at 509-577-7674 or dlester@yakimaherald.com.

FFA Challenges Delta Smelt Order

2009-07-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

Family Farm Alliance News Release
Family Farm Alliance Calls for Withdrawal
Of Biased, Unscientific Order for Delta Smelt Contact: Dan Keppen @ 541-892-6244
Brenda Davis @ 916-341-7404

Fifteen Years of Failure to Protect the Delta Is Enough;
Group Calls on Government to Restore Scientific Integrity

(Klamath Falls, Oregon - July 13, 2009). Declaring that fifteen years of failure is enough, the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance) has filed suit to force the withdrawal of the federal government's latest order cutting back California's water supplies on behalf of the delta smelt. The order issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) does not meet the Endangered Species Act's standards for quality of data and scientific integrity according to the suit filed on Friday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
"Fortunately the Endangered Species Act (ESA) sets strict standards to protect the public and the environment from biased and unscientific abuses of its provisions," said Dan Keppen, Alliance Executive Director. "We are taking this action to protect the integrity of ESA and to ensure that those standards are applied to correct the federal government's unmitigated record of failure in the Delta."

For the past 15 years, federal regulators have ordered more and more stringent restrictions on the water supplies pumped through the Delta to serve California's farms and cities, on the presumption that the pumps were harming delta smelt. Those restrictions have cost California billions of dollars in economic losses and tens of thousands of jobs. But instead of showing any benefit from these measures, the population of delta smelt has continued to decline.

Among the many defects in USFWS's December order, which reduced by one third the state's water supplies to more than 25 million people, the Alliance pointed out that:

Instead of conducting the independent peer review that the law requires, USFWS brought in the authors of the papers on which the agency's order was based. In effect, they were being asked to review the adequacy of their own work. None would qualify under the standards set by ESA, the Information Quality Act or the federal Office of Management and Budget guidelines.

Although ESA requires USFWS to use the best available scientific and commercial data, the agency instead based its findings in part on an analysis which had not been published or peer reviewed and, supposedly, data, which USFWS refused even to disclose. Moreover, it turns out the agency did not actually possess some of the data that it claimed it used to order the cutbacks in water supplies.

Rather than relying on scientific evidence to form its conclusions as the law requires, USFWS only cited the bits and pieces of information that supported its own assumptions and ignored the rest.

The Alliance is not alone in questioning the integrity of USFWS's smelt order. The California Department of Water Resources has formally asked that it be withdrawn for reconsultation and revision. DWR says there is new information on better ways to protect the smelt that was not considered in the existing order.

And the federal court recently granted a temporary injunction against USFWS' order on a complaint that the order violated the National Environmental Policy Act because the federal government failed to prepare an environmental impact statement. Instead the order was drafted in secret and put into effect without any public hearings or review.

At a recent town hall meeting in Fresno, where area congressmen, business leaders, landowners and farmworkers criticized the order's scientific inadequacy, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar declined to defend USFWS' action, pointing out that these cutbacks in water supplies had been the work of the previous administration.

"President Obama and the leadership in Congress have declared their commitment to upholding the standards and bringing the best science to bear on governmental decision making," said Keppen. "We applaud their commitment and call on them to live up to that promise by withdrawing this flawed and fallacious order now, before it does any more harm."

Numerous scientific studies have identified multiple causes for the delta smelt's decline, including ammonia discharges from Sacramento and other industrial pollution, temperature changes, and invasive non-native species that are devouring the smelt's food as well as the smelt themselves.

"USFWS has refused to analyze these other factors and their importance, sticking instead to their assumption that pumping must be the problem," Keppen said. "But if anything, their failure to produce any benefits for the smelt over the last fifteen years should demonstrate that the pumps are not the problem."

According to analyses prepared by the University of California, federal restrictions on pumping water through the Delta, combined with the ongoing effects of drought, cost California's Central Valley economy more than $300 million in 2008 and nearly $1 billion this year. The economic impacts statewide are much greater.

"These are critical issues for the members of our alliance," Keppen pointed out. "More than 300,000 acres of productive farmlands have been fallowed because of these cutbacks. Rationing is being imposed in many California cities. Our membership includes farmers but we also represent irrigation districts, commodity associations, private water companies, and suppliers of a wide range of farm-related services and equipment. We are all being hurt by these federal cutbacks in water deliveries."

The Alliance brought its concerns with the adequacy of the data used for this order to the attention of USFWS as soon as the order was released in December, 2008. But USFWS has so far refused to address these problems or correct the order. The Alliance has now exhausted all of the opportunities for administrative relief.

"This is the first time that the Alliance has engaged in litigation, and it's not a step we take lightly," said Alliance President Patrick O'Toole. "But in this case, we had no other choice. "Preserving the scientific basis for these decisions and ensuring the fairness and transparency of all the proceedings under ESA is a vitally important issue for all of our members throughout the western states."

The Family Farm Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 17 Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers. For more information on the Alliance, go to www.familyfarmalliance.org

LA Times Weighs in on Columbia River Salmon Issues

2009-07-06T13:31:00.000-07:00

Saving the Columbia and Snake river salmon
L.A. Times-7/6/09
By Paul VanDevelder
Opinion

If ever there were a story that foreshadowed the political and legal Waterloos that loom in seeking solutions to climate change, surely that cautionary tale is the one about the Columbia and Snake rivers' salmon and their imminent extinction. And like most stories about endangered species or environmental threats, this one is not only about fish and rivers -- it's about us.

The policy deadlock that has resulted from the debate among stakeholders along the Columbia and the Snake -- aluminum smelters, the Bonneville Power Administration, politicians, Indian tribes, states, conservation groups, fishermen, barge operators, agribusiness and wheat farmers -- has flushed billions of taxpayer dollars out to sea over the last 15 years while doing very little to prevent 13 endangered salmon stocks from going extinct.

In March, the federal judge responsible for herding all these cats toward a scientifically based solution that meets the requirements of the Endangered Species Act announced that he had heard enough bickering. District Judge James Redden summoned all the stakeholders to his courtroom in Portland, Ore., with the edict to take "aggressive action" and that "now is the time to make that happen."

In addition to being the judge in this case, Redden acts as the government's "special master" for the Columbia River basin, a network of rivers and streams that fans out over an area the size of France. In that role, he has the final say on any proposed changes to fish habitat and the uses of the rivers' payload: water.

At the March meeting in his courtroom, Redden wore both hats and congratulated all sides for getting "very close" to a final rescue plan for the fish. After losing precious years to political infighting and foot-dragging by the Clinton and Bush administrations, Redden noted that much progress had been made in recent years in formulating a workable plan -- "a biological opinion" -- to keep the salmon from becoming extinct.

However, he warned, there were still problems with the plan. For one thing, government scientists had relied too heavily on statistical sleight of hand to support their argument that endangered fish were trending toward recovery. For another, the removal of four dams on the lower Snake River must be included in the recovery plan in case all other remedies fail.

There it was. Out in the open and on the table. Dam removal -- a remedy that the Bush administration had rejected out of hand -- was back in play. Fax machines across the region came to life when Redden's letter reached the stakeholders.

"Federal law doesn't allow dam removal, and no Democrat-politician-turned-activist-judge can rewrite the law," wrote Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) The Northwest River Partners expressed dismay, and the Portland Oregonian's editorial board described Redden's letter as "puzzling."

"The letter is strongly critical of the key strategy in the plan to focus on habitat improvements to offset the harm that federal power-generating dams inflict on fish," the Oregonian wrote, expressing surprise at such a reaction while conveniently ignoring the fact that billions of dollars spent on habitat improvement, fish ladders and barging young fish around dams have done very little to increase salmon populations.

If anything, these measures have lengthened the odds against the salmon's survival by shifting the focus away from more politically explosive solutions, such as dam removal. Redden first issued his warning about the dams in 2004, when he threw out the first Bush rescue plan.

Politicians and stakeholders have steadfastly resisted the painful solution of dam removal while hoping for a miracle. That hope turned out to be a one-way road on a dead-end street, and in many respects they're now blaming the court for their current predicament. With few exceptions, the region's politicians, past and current, have been challenging the recommendations of scientists (including dam removal and increasing the spills over the dams) for more than a decade. Former Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) famously vowed to chain himself to a dam rather than surrender, a prospect relished by many conservation groups.

Throughout this stalemate, fish counts have continued to fall, and the underlying science is clear: In river after river where dams have been removed, native fish populations have rebounded and thrived. As the government's former chief aquatic biologist, Don Chapman, concluded, dam removal is the most effective strategy for saving endangered native fish stocks from extinction.

This was the conclusion reached by the Idaho Statesman newspaper back in 1997 after it conducted a yearlong study of the Snake River dams. The paper reported that the economic benefits of a healthy fishery -- and the resultant tens of thousands of jobs -- would swamp the benefits of leaving the dams in place.

Dozens of reports by natural resources economists have agreed. Among other things, they describe the dams as economic sinkholes, which produce less than 3% of the region's power, do nothing for flood control, irrigate only a handful of big farms and subsidize transportation costs (at the expense of taxpayers and salmon) for wheat farmers in Idaho and eastern Washington.

The Columbia-Snake corridor is the salmon's only option for survival, and Redden is probably their last hope. He is the one person in this entire drama who is legally obligated to use science and the law to protect the fish from extinction and from the whims of politicians. If the law and science are unable to trump politics to save this fishery -- a fishery that was the most productive in the world just two generations ago -- how will we ever meet the towering challenges posed by global climate change?

For the sake of the fish and the 500 other species that depend on this wild and "vital resource" for their survival, many of us hope the judge has the resolve to stay the course and to see the job through.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-vandevelder6-2009jul06,0,1077571.story?track=rss

SCBID Seeks Accountant

2009-06-25T12:25:00.000-07:00

Accountant Position Available

The South Columbia Basin Irrigation District is accepting applications for the position of Accountant. Bachelor’s degree in Accounting and 1-3 years of governmental accounting experience preferred. Suitable accounting experience may satisfy degree requirement. Wage: $18.39 - $22.92 per hour DOQ. Benefit package includes medical, dental, retirement, paid vacation, holidays and sick leave. Interested parties should submit a resume and letter of interest to HR Manager, P.O. Box 1006, Pasco, WA 99301 by 7/24/09.

Commisioner Conner has his Plate Full

2009-06-19T13:22:00.000-07:00

WATER: Seasoned government lawyer takes on West's intractable problems (Thursday, June 18, 2009)Eryn Gable, special to E&E

From the fields of California's San Joaquin Valley to the city of Las Vegas, the Bureau of Reclamation has transformed the landscape of the West by damming rivers that helped agriculture boom and cities blossom. The 600 dams the Bureau of Reclamation has built across 17 Western states stand as lasting monuments to the agency's engineering accomplishments, but as the agency looks ahead, it faces numerous challenges.

Much of that infrastructure is in need of repair, and the dams have forever altered Western ecosystems, sometimes creating conflicts between the needs of people and those of fish and wildlife species. Additionally, the uncertainties of climate change and future population growth in the West are expected to place new burdens on the region's water supplies.

The man set to take on these challenges is Michael Connor, the newly appointed commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Connor takes the helm of an agency that delivers water to more than 31 million people, provides one in five farmers with irrigation and is the second-largest producer of hydroelectric power in the West.
"I think we need to seize opportunities to solve big problems," Connor told an audience earlier this month at a conference on Western water issues at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

In a subsequent interview with E&E, Connor suggested that the federal government can play a role in helping to solve conflicts over water in areas such as the Klamath Basin, California's Bay Delta and the Colorado River.
"What I want to see is that we're at the table, that we're part of the dialogue, that we're helping to mold the strategy that people put together to solve these issues for the long term," he said.

Outsized challenges

Among the major challenges Connor identified that are facing the bureau are drought, increasing population growth in the West that is driving increasing municipal needs for water, food supply security, degraded ecosystems, achieving energy independence and climate change.

Equally daunting is the fact that all of those issues must be handled in a time of tight purse strings. "I think the budget issues are going to be the most significant challenge to having the successes and making the progress that this administration hopes to make," Connor said.

The bureau is set to receive $1 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including $450 million for future water supply needs, $165 million to improve infrastructure reliability and safety, $236 million for ecosystem restoration and $80 million for drought relief. But even with the stimulus funding, the agency faces a $620 million backlog for water recycling and reuse projects, a $1.5 billion backlog for rural water projects, at least a $1 billion backlog for authorized American Indian water rights settlements, and at least a $1.2 billion backlog for ecosystem restoration projects.

In light of these challenges, Connor said his priorities would be to aggressively implement water efficiency and conservation projects, assess and address the effects of climate change and help develop the new energy economy.

Although hydroelectric power is a renewable energy source, Connor does not see the bureau engaging in any major dam-building projects as part of its role in developing the new energy economy. Rather, he says, water conservation and efficiency, using more renewables like wind and solar in its operations, and generating more hydropower at its existing facilities will be vital in helping to reduce the United States' reliance on carbon-based fuels.

"I don't want to go down the path of saying we need to create more dams so that we have more hydro," Connor said. "Those proposals just take so long and are so controversial. I think we need to look for something that's more viable."
Looking ahead, Connor also said the bureau needs to continue to operate its facilities in a way that serves a lot more values than its traditional role of providing water for agriculture and cities.

The bureau needs to be "operating dams in a way that makes sense given the climate challenge and ecosystem challenges while still trying to find a way of making sure that we can deliver water and generate power," he said. "It's the operation of those facilities that I think will be a key signature item as we move forward."

Deep, diverse background

Connor brings a mixed background to his job as the bureau's commissioner, from his work as an engineer to his roles as a water lawyer and a congressional aide. He has more than 15 years of experience in the public sector, most recently serving as counsel to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee since 2001. At the committee, Connor managed legislation for the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, developed water resources legislation and handled American Indian issues within the committee's jurisdiction.

Prior to that, Connor worked in the Interior Department, first in the Interior Solicitor's Office and eventually as director of the Indian Water Rights Office from 1998 to 2001. In that role, he represented the Interior Department in negotiations with Indian tribes, state representatives and private water users to secure water rights settlements.

Connor has a law degree from the University of Colorado, Boulder's School of Law and a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from New Mexico State University. He has also worked for General Electric Co.

Because of his background, Connor brings an understanding of the limitations of Western water law to his job, as well as an understanding of the pitfalls of Congress. Additionally, his work on Indian water rights settlements, in particular, has demonstrated his ability to bring people with disparate interests together to work toward a common solution.

John D'Antonio, New Mexico's state engineer, described Connor as a tough but fair negotiator, noting Connor's ability to bring resolution to three American Indian water rights settlements in New Mexico and another in Arizona.

"In all those cases, nobody got everything they wanted, but everybody got enough that they would sign the settlement agreement," D'Antonio said.
Reaching those settlements was not an easy task, and it often required a good bit of determination -- and sometimes even well-timed threats -- on Connor's part.
"He could be very tough when he needed to be. Sometimes you need to knock heads together to get things done," said Jennifer Gimbel, who worked at the Bureau of Reclamation under the Bush administration and chaired Interior's Indian Water Rights Working Group from 2005 to 2007.

Results-oriented leader

Mark Limbaugh, who served as assistant Interior secretary for water and science under the Bush administration, said he found Connor to be someone who could make good policy decisions based on fairness, rather than emotions. "Even when we didn't agree, I understood his position," he said.

Despite Connor's long service in Washington, D.C., Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes described him as someone who remains untouched by the large egos so prevalent on Capitol Hill.

"He's not looking for the limelight, he's looking for results," said Hayes, who has known Connor since the Clinton administration. "He cares about results more than publicity or self-aggrandizement."

"He is a wonderful, kind and modest individual whose intellect doesn't get in the way of his humanity," added David Getches, the dean of the University of Colorado School of Law. "I think he'll be a great commissioner."

Tanya Trujillo, who has taken over Connor's job as counsel for the Energy Committee and previously worked as general counsel for the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, added that Connor has good problem-solving skills. "He'll be good at thinking creatively and proactively in accomplishing what I'm sure are very ambitious goals he has set for himself and the agency," she said.

Getches noted that Connor's interest in water goes back to his days as a law student, and his depth of knowledge on Western water issues will serve him well in his new role. "Choosing him was not done as a political payback. It was a true exercise in meritocracy," he said.

Connor's experience on Capitol Hill and at Interior is also expected to give him a leg up as commissioner. "He's going to be able to go in and not miss a beat," said Kellie Donnelly, the GOP's deputy chief counsel on the Energy Committee. "He's going to get in and hit the ground running."

Larry MacDonnell, who was a professor at the University of Colorado while Connor was a student, noted that Connor faces a number of challenges as the head of the Bureau of Reclamation, including the growing populations of the West and the uncertainties associated with climate change. But MacDonnell expressed confidence that Connor will rise to meet those challenges.

"He's got his plate full, but I don't think he'd have it any other way," MacDonnell said.

11th Circuit Court adopt Unitary Waters Theory

2009-06-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

Clean Water Act Regulates One Pot of Soup: The Unitary Waters Theory Adopted

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an order filed today, was the first court to interpret a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation, the Water Transfers Rule (40 C.F.R. § 122.3(i)), which affects the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

The case before the Court involved litigation brought by environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians claiming the South Florida Water Management District was violating the Clean Water Act by pumping waters polluted by a “loathsome concoction of chemical contaminants” into Lake Okeechobee. The EPA joined the case on the side of the Water District arguing that a NPEDS permit was not necessary. The trial court concluded the District violated the Clean Water Act and ordered the executive director of the Water District to apply for a NPDES permit.

The big issue in the case and on appeal was the meaning of the word “addition.” The Clean Water Act bans the discharge of any pollutant without a permit, and “discharge” is defined as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source. Unfortunately for the courts and many litigants, the Clean Water Act did not define “addition.”

The EPA argued that no permit was necessary for the water district in this case, because the water was already polluted when it passed through the pumps (the point sources) into the lake, and that “navigable waters” means all of the United States navigable waters as a whole. Thus, according to the EPA no pollutants were added to the navigable waters as they passed through district managed pumps to the lake. The metaphor used by the U.S. Supreme Court describing this “unitary waters theory” is a soup pot. When you scoop soup into a ladle and then pour it back into the pot you have not “added” any soup to the pot. Under the unitary waters theory, all of the United States navigable waters are one pot of soup.

Previous courts rejected the unitary waters theory. The difference here is that the 11th Circuit could include consideration of the Water Transfers Rule recently adopted by the EPA to support a unitary waters theory. In order to apply the Water Transfers Rule, the Court had to determine whether the language of the Clean Water Act was “ambiguous.” Both sides of the controversy argued reasonable but conflicting interpretations of the “navigable waters” language – does it mean one collective group of water, or does it mean any distinct body of water? The Court determines that since it could mean either, the language was ambiguous.

Because of the ambiguity, the Court was required to defer to EPA’s Water Transfers Rule enacted by the EPA, because it matched one of the reasonable interpretations of the statute. Thus, unless and until the EPA rescinds their rule or Congress overrides it, all bodies of navigable water in the United States are to be considered one body of water for the purpose of NPDES permits.

Since South Florida Water District was not adding the pollutants to the water initially, and was merely transferring polluted water from one place to another, the District was not required to obtain a permit – something the environmental groups in the case find contrary to the purpose of the Clean Water Act.

Eleventh Circuit Case: Friends of the Everglades, Florida Wildlife Federation et al. v. South Florida Water Management District, et. al. D.C. Docket No. 02-80309-CV-CMA, Order filed June 4, 2009.

KID Announces $58M Conservation Plan

2009-05-27T09:52:00.000-07:00

KID touts 10-year, $58M water saving plan
BY JOHN TRUMBO, TRI-CITY HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published: 05/23/09

Kennewick Irrigation District officials have a $58 million water conservation plan they believe not only will save water and help fish, but also improve service.
An added bonus to the 10-year plan, which would tap the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for most of the money, is it could help the 55,000-acre district make the transition from being an agency that historically served mostly farmers to one that increasingly strains to satisfy thousands of urban water customers.
Urbanization has become KID's biggest obstacle to customer satisfaction, as evidenced by years of rising rates with no measurable improvement in service.
But Scott Revell, interim district manager, said a big investment in consolidating pumping stations, piping open canals and building reservoirs would make KID's distribution system more efficient and capable of handling changing water demands.
If the improvements bring the district's 21,000 customers water delivered on time, with fewer outages and at an affordable price, more of them would be happy, he said.
The plan, laid out in a 165-page report approved by the KID board in December, would seek $38 million from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with KID and Washington State Department of Ecology each paying about $10 million.
The next step is to do a feasibility study over the next 8 to 12 months. KID is searching for a consultant to do the study, which could cost about $300,000. The bureau would cover about $218,000, with KID paying $55,000 and the Department of Ecology paying the remaining $37,000, Revell said.
The study will make KID eligible for millions in bureau money through the Yakima River Water Enhancement Program, and would determine priorities for conservation projects.
Seven projects are proposed for the next five years. Each involves adding storage capacity within KID's far-flung canal system or a combination of new piping and pressurization to make water deliveries more consistent. The projects are:
* Adding an in-flow reservoir in the Division IV canal southwest of 45th Avenue and Olympia Street and building a centralized pumping station for $4.2 million. Planned for 2009, if possible.
* Extending the South Edison Street pipeline north of 8th Avenue to eliminate about 3,000 feet of open canal. This would eliminate seepage and evaporation and give more efficient flow. Cost would be $950,000. Planned for 2010.
* A new central pumping station near the Creekstone subdivision south of 10th Avenue would eliminate need for numerous pumps in pressurized service areas in central Kennewick. The Highland Feeder Canal through Creekstone would be widened, deepened and lined to form a 2,600-foot in-flow reservoir. Five miles of a lateral canal would be piped to prevent water losses and improve flow. Cost would be $9 million. Planned for 2010.
* Consolidation of pumps for east Kennewick would involve a new larger pump station near Zintel Canyon that would draw from a 3-acre-foot reservoir. It would eliminate three miles of canal and cost $9.6 million. Planned for 2011.
* Pressurizing piping in the Amon wasteway area on the west side of Kennewick would provide for future development and eliminate water losses. Cost would be $9 million. Planned for 2011.
* Consolidating pumps for the Badger East system would cost $21.9 million. A new pump station near the Amon reservoir west of Meadow Springs subdivision would tie in with an Amon in-flow reservoir and eliminate numerous smaller pumping stations. About 12 miles of piping would replace a portion of the Badger East canal to conserve water. Planned for 2012.
* Building an in-flow reservoir for the Amon system would cost $3.9 million. It would allow the district to regulate flow based on demand and prevent some water loss. Planned for 2013.
The consultants estimated water savings from all of the projects at about 28,000 acre-feet, which is about 27 percent of the 102,000 acre-feet allotted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to KID. An acre-foot is enough water to cover one acre 12 inches deep.
Water saved would remain in the Yakima River to benefit fish. The consultants' report said the improvements also would mean less chance of contaminants accumulating in the KID system and ending up in the Columbia River as operational spill.
The consultants said replacing dozens of smaller pump stations with just five larger and more efficient pump stations also would produce $307,000 in annual energy savings.
Other projects to eliminate water losses and operational spill are planned in the second five-year period. Most would replace open ditches with piping.

Humans to be Considered in ESA decisions

2009-05-26T12:40:00.000-07:00

Ruling: Humans, not just fish, to factor in divvying delta water
The Fresno Bee – 5/22/09
By John Ellis

A federal judge stunned and delighted west-side farmers on Friday, ruling that the federal government must consider the effect on humans -- not just fish -- when allocating delta water.

U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger did not tell officials how to operate the Central Valley Project, and he said it was up to them to manage the massive water pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

But Wanger said officials must focus not just on protecting the endangered delta smelt when discussing these issues. They also must take into account "the harm being visited upon humans, the community and the environment." He also said officials must explain and justify how they reached their water-allocation decisions.

A few months ago, the federal government in effect reduced the volume of water pumped out of the delta by issuing new rules to protect the smelt. That means west-side growers are receiving less water for crops.

Wanger's ruling Friday raised growers' hopes of getting some of that water back, although the case is far from over.

As Wanger prepared to rule Friday, west-side farmers and members of the Westlands Water District and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority sat in the courtroom with long faces, expecting the worst. But after a series of losses to environmentalists, they instead found themselves on the winning side.

"The long and short of it for us today is this is a good thing, for the simple fact that it recognizes the impact that is being felt" by farmers and residents of the San Joaquin Valley's west side, said Westlands Water District spokeswoman Sarah Woolf.

Wanger's ruling followed a four-hour hearing on a lawsuit by Westlands and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority to stop the federal government from enforcing a new management plan for the delta smelt.

The lawsuit was filed in March, more than two months after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a new set of federal rules to protect the smelt. The updated rules -- known as a biological opinion -- were drafted after Wanger had invalidated earlier regulations because they did not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.

A central piece of the lawsuit sought to nullify the updated smelt-management plan. Wanger made no ruling on that part of the lawsuit. But he found that a second claim -- that the new smelt plan lacked an assessment on the environmental effect on humans -- was valid.

The updated smelt-management plan resulted in a sharp reduction in water deliveries for agricultural and urban users, not only in the San Joaquin Valley, but also in the Bay Area and Southern California. It's not known if Wanger's order will prompt the federal government to increase water deliveries from the delta.

But Wanger made it clear that if the water exports stay at current levels -- which west-side officials say are too low and give no consideration to human needs -- federal officials must explain why.

Wanger said the delta smelt remains endangered and at risk of extinction, but he also said Valley residents are facing adverse environmental effects driven by a persistent drought and a cut in water deliveries.

He said the adverse environmental effects include dust rising from fallowed fields that could lead to a decline in air quality.

High unemployment rates in west-side Valley towns also are an effect of the water decisions, Wanger said.

Wanger's order is in effect through June 30, or when the water temperature in two delta channels -- Old River and Middle River -- reaches 77 degrees Fahrenheit for three days. Higher temperatures can adversely affect the smelt.

The order's temporary nature almost certainly sets up more legal battles between the two sides. James Maysonett, who represented the federal government, asked Wanger on Friday to hold off on his order while it is appealed.

Wanger denied the motion.

Kate Poole, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said she didn't like Wanger's ruling, but she said no decision had been made on seeking an appeal.

Friday's hearing set up a strange twist: Daniel O'Hanlon, who represented Westlands and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, found himself pitted against federal attorneys who for years were his allies against environmental groups. This time, federal and environmental attorneys were allied against Westlands and San Luis. #

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/crime/story/1422966.html

Senate Confirms Nominees including Conner for Reclamation Commissioner

2009-05-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

NOMINATIONS: Interior, DOE picks clear Senate panel (05/13/2009)
Katherine Ling, E&E reporter

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today agreed to send two Energy Department and two Interior Department nominees to the Senate floor for confirmations.

The panel voted en bloc for Daniel Poneman to be DOE deputy secretary; David Sandalow to be assistant secretary of DOE for international affairs and domestic policy; Rhea Suh to be assistant secretary of Interior for policy, management and budget; and Michael Connor to be commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Only the secretaries of DOE and Interior and Tom Strickland as Interior assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks have been confirmed by the Senate so far. The delay in confirmations has left key political posts open as Congress considers major energy and climate bills and Interior examines several controversial oil and gas leasing and Endangered Species Act issues.

The four nominees seem likely to escape the fate of their colleagues, as it appears they will not face any holds from the committee members.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has holds on the nominations of David Hayes to be Interior deputy secretary and Hilary Tompkins to be Interior solicitor, in part over concerns about Utah oil and gas leases that the Obama administration canceled in February. A procedural vote to bypass the hold failed today by three votes.
Bennett said he does not plan to put a hold on Suh's nomination but is watching closely.

Suh is currently a program officer at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and has served as a consultant for the National Park Service, where she wrote educational strategy and developed educational programs for underserved constituencies, and as senior legislative assistant to former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.). She also has been a high school science teacher in New York City.
Connor has been the general counsel to the committee since 2001. In that position, he has worked extensively on legislation related to water reclamation, American Indian lands and energy. He previously was director of Interior's Indian Water Rights Office.

Both DOE nominees held positions in President Clinton's administration. Poneman was a special assistant to Clinton and senior director for nonproliferation and export controls at the National Security Council, which he first joined under President George H.W. Bush. Poneman is currently a principal at the Scowcroft Group.
Sandalow served as assistant secretary of State for oceans, environment and science under Clinton, and as senior director for environmental affairs on the National Security Council. He is currently an energy and climate expert at the Brookings Institution and has served as an executive with the World Wildlife Fund and as chairman of the energy and climate working group of the Clinton Global Initiative.

SVID Engineering Position Opening

2009-05-13T09:30:00.000-07:00

Engineering Technician
Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District has an opening for one full time Engineering Technician in the Sunnyside office. An A.A. Engineering Technician degree with emphasis in irrigation, drainage, hydraulics and surveying is preferred. Relevant work experience may be substituted for education. To be considered for this position, please request an application (509 837-6980). The completed application together with a resume must be submitted by June 1, 2009 to: Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, PO Box 239, Sunnyside, WA 98944 Attn: Assistant Manager-Engineering or e-mail schrammd@svid.org.

Publish:
May 17, 2009
May 24, 2009

SVID Reorganizes Management

2009-05-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

News Release
May 8, 2009District Manager Jim Trull announced today that the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (SVID) administrative staff has been reorganized to better address the increased workload associated with the impact of receiving stimulus funds from the federal government. These funds will be used to accelerate the implementation of its conservation program.
Effective May 11th Don Schramm will turn over his responsibilities as Assistant Manager of Operations to become Assistant Manager - Engineering so that he can devote his time to managing both Phase I and Phase II of the Sunnyside Division’s conservation program. He will also oversee operation and maintenance engineering as well. The water quality department will continue to report to him.
Ken Ott, District Watermaster will replace Don Schramm as Assistant Manager -Operations while retaining his watermaster duties. He will oversee operation and maintenance activities of irrigation, drainage and the shop. He will also be responsible for health and safety issues.
Lori Brady will continue to as Assistant Manager of Administration. She will relinquish her responsibilities of supervising the engineering staff to devote more time to administration, finances, information technology, and financial reporting of Phase II of the conservation project.
Contact: Jim Trull
SVID
trullj@svid.org or (509) 837-6980

EPA and Reclamation FY 2010 Budget Summary

2009-05-08T08:52:00.000-07:00

President Obama first released a shell overview of his Fiscal Year 2010 budget on February 26, but on May 7, Obama and Agency heads released a more detailed FY 2010 budget request. During a news conference at the White House on Thursday morning, the President unveiled his pared down budget saying, “we can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don’t matter, and waste is not our problem. We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration—or the next generation”.

Environmental Protection Agency
Despite the deep cuts for other agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lisa Jackson, unveiled her agency’s largest budget in its thirty nine year history saying. Jackson praised the Administration’s budget priorities saying, "EPA’s new budget reflects the President’s commitment to growing a clean energy economy and protecting human health and the environment. These investments reject the false choice of a green economy or a green environment, and position EPA to lead the way in green jobs, innovation and technology, and action on global climate change. Expanding on the investments of the Recovery Act, this budget allows EPA to provide real solutions to our economic crisis. It takes significant strides to ensure that our air, land, and water are safe and clean. And it significantly improves accountability and transparency, ensuring fiscal responsibility at a time when every dollar count”.
Details of EPA’s FY 2010 Budget Request are below:
Program FY ’09 Request FY ’10 Request
Clean Water State Revolving Fund $555 Million $2.4 billion
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund $842 Million $1.5 billion
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks $72 Million $113 Million
Superfund $1.26 Billion $1.3 Billion
Total Discretionary Budget Authority $7.14 Billion $10.5 Billion

The EPA’s full budget can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/budget/2010/2010cj.htm
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program
The Army Corps of Engineers has not yet released details of their FY 2010 budget request and the scheduled briefing has been postponed. Details will follow as soon as they become available.

Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation
The President’s FY ’10 budget request funds the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) at $1 billion which is offset by $35.1 million in funds from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for a net total of $985 million. Although Secretary Salazar has not yet held a Department wide briefing, details of the Bureau’s FY ’10 budget request were unveiled during the May 7 stakeholder’s budget briefing. While some new programs authorized by the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act have been included in the budget (ie San Joaquin River Restoration), stakeholders were told that the majority of those projects and programs were not included in the 2010 budget due to the fact that the legislation was signed into law too late in the budget development process to be accounted for.
Highlights of the budget are below.
Program FY ’09 Enacted FY ’10 Request
CALFED $40 Million $31 Million
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (total w/ offset) $3.4 Million $0.3 Million
San Joaquin River Restoration (mandatory appropriations) $0 $15.9 Million
Dam Safety Program $88.3 Million $101.9 million
Klamath Project $23 Million $25 Million
Platte River Recovery Program $10.6 Million $12.7 Million
Site Security Activities $28 Million $28.9 Million
Central Arizona Project $25.4 Million $18.4 Million
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project $18.2 Million $22.2 Million
Rural Water Projects $139 Million $64 Million
Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program $39.2 Million $9.0 Million
Yakima Project $7.8 Million $8.5 Million
Yuma Area Projects $21.3 Million $24.5 Million
Columbia Basin Project $12.1 Million $16.5 Million
Animas-La Plata Project $50.0 Million $54.2 Million
Water Conservation Initiative $50.3 Million $46.0 Million
Loan Program (P.L. 84-984) $0 $0
Total Discretionary Budget Authority $1.15 Billion $919.3 Million

The Bureau’s full budget information can be found at: http://www.usbr.gov/budget/2010/CONTENTS.pdf

Congressional hearings on the budget request are expected to begin within the next two weeks. For more information about any project or Agency budget request, please contact me at 703-524-1544 or acoffey@nwra.org.

Bureau of Reclamation FY 2010 Budget

2009-05-08T08:39:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration today released its FY 2010 budget request for The Bureau of Reclamation. (The Corps of Engineers budget was still being finalized today and was not available for release). The Bureau’s detailed budget request be found here. http://www.usbr.gov/budget/2010/CONTENTS.pdf.

The FY 2010 BOR request includes $893 million for the Water and Related Resources Account (W&RR), which funds most of the Bureau’s core operations and programs. The Obama W&RR request is significantly greater than the amounts requested for that account by Bureau during the Bush Administration, but less than the $920 million provided by Congress for the current fiscal year. Congress steadily increased Bureau funding between 2000 and 2008, with 2009 marking the first significant decrease. If the Obama request is enacted, it would continue that downward trend and bring Bureau funding to roughly the 2006 level.
Highlights of the Bureau’s W&RR request include:
$102 million for the Safety of Dams Program, an almost $14 million increase over FY 09, attributable in large part to major work at Folsom Dam in California.
$2 million for a study associated with removal of four privately owned hydro-electric dams in the Klamath Basin. They study is part of an agreement with the dam’s owners, water users, tribes and conservation groups. Another $2 million is being requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the same study.
$21.4 million for Lower Colorado River Operations, an increase of more than $6 million over FY 09. This includes $13.6 million for the Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP), which received just under $9 million in FY 09.
$12.7 million for the Platte River Recovery Program, an increase of $2 million over FY 09.
$64 million for rural water supply projects, a $75 million decrease from what Congress appropriated for FY 09. Congress generally provides significantly more funding for rural water supply projects than the Bureau requests. The Bureau’s economic stimulus plan provide $200 million for rural water supply projects
$33 million for the Challenge Grant Program, now re-packaged with other programs as the “Water Conservation Initiative.” The $33 million for the grants program is a $29 million increase over FY 09. The Bureau says that it expects to continue to cap individual grants at about $300,000 in FY 10. The Bureau’s economic stimulus plan provides $40 million for Challenge Grants, but sets the minimum grant amount at $1 million.

Separately from the W&RR account, the Bureau’s budget request includes $31 million for California’s Bay-Delta program. That is a $9 million decrease from FY 09. The request includes $4 million for continued study of four possible new surface storage projects and $4 million for continued studies of projects to improve water conveyance facilities.
The FY 10 budget also provides a total of $16.9 million for implementation of the San Joaquin River Settlement. Of that amount, all but $1 million is to come from revenues from the Friant surcharge and annual capital repayment, which are to be deposited into the new San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. The other $1 million is budgeted to come from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.

The President’s budget request is three months late because of the transition to a new Administration, but House and Senate Appropriations Committees are still planning to move appropriations bills toward final approval by the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1. The Committees will begin writing the appropriations bill covering the Bureau and the Corps within the next few weeks.

Joe Raeder
The Ferguson Group
1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-331-8500 ext 1233
Fax: 202-331-1598
Cell: 202-255-5826

jraeder@tfgnet.com
website: www.fergusongroup.us

Interior 2010 Proposed Budget

2009-05-07T11:03:00.000-07:00

7, 2009
Contact: Frank Quimby, (202) 208-6416

$12 Billion Interior Budget Focuses on New Energy Frontier,
Climate Impacts, America’s Treasured Landscapes, a 21st Century Youth
Conservation Corps, and Native American Communities

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Obama’s proposed $12 billion budget for the Department of the Interior in FY2010 will allow the nation’s largest land manager to play a central role in carrying out the President’s vision for addressing the challenges of our times, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said today.

“Interior is uniquely positioned to be a leader in responsibly developing America’s new energy frontier, tackling climate impacts, restoring and preserving America’s treasured landscapes, creating a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps, and investing in strong tribal communities,” Salazar said in announcing the agency’s proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2009. “The President’s stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has provided Interior $3 billion to lay a foundation for this work and his 2010 budget will build on that with targeted increases in key areas.”

The 2010 budget for Interior makes investments critical to the Nation’s economic future including:

● $183 million in increases for a clean energy and mitigation of
climate impacts, including:

● $50.1 million for the Clean Energy Future Initiative to
facilitate responsible development of
Interior-managed lands and offshore areas with the
highest renewable energy potential, including
wind, solar, geothermal and biomass; and

● $133 million for a Climate Impact Initiative to support
integrated activities to assess and
respond to the effects of climate change on
Interior-managed landscapes, water and wildlife;

● $100 million for National Park Service operations to restore and
protect America’s treasured
landscapes;

• $95.2 million in the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Interior
to protect critical landscapes and
endangered species habitat and enhance recreational opportunities; and

• a $75 million contingency reserve fund for wildland fire
suppression to minimize the need for the
transfer of funds from non-fire programs when the budgeted ten-year average for suppression is
exhausted;

● $102 million in to strengthen American Indian and Native Alaskan
communities through expanded education programs, putting more
officers on the streets and enhanced law enforcement training; and

● $50 million for a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps to engage
more youth in the
outdoors through environmental stewardship education, career
development, and a new fishing, hunting and wildlife management
educational program.

“The budget makes hard budget choices while making wise investments in a clean energy economy, making investments in education that will allow student to compete in the 21st century economy, and confronting other challenges,” Secretary Salazar noted. “These proposed initiative increases include more than $100 million in grants to states and tribal communities, our partners in solving the economic and resource challenges facing the Nation.”

Interior manages roughly 20 percent of all U.S. lands, along with the 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. Almost one-third of the nation’s domestic energy production is generated from Interior-managed lands and waters. Interior also fulfills federal responsibilities for American Indian and Native Alaskan tribes.

Creating a New Energy Frontier: The Budget includes $50.1 million to spur renewable energy projects on Federal lands, facilitate the siting of new transmission facilities, assess alternative energy resources, and ensure adequate environmental protections.

As part of the nation’s clean energy future, the Minerals Management Service would receive increases of $24 million for the development of a robust renewable energy leasing program on the Outer Continental Shelf that will return revenues to the American people. The Bureau of Land Management would receive an increase of $16.1 million for permitting and leasing renewable energy resources and developing transmission facilities, including planning, environmental assessments and analyses. The BLM will use $11 million of that increase to establish four renewable Energy Coordination offices to increase permitting processing capacity and accelerate the delivery of renewable energy to customers.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs would receive $5 million to support renewable energy development on tribal and BIA-managed lands, which will lead to improved economic development. About $3 million would be used for the USGS to develop scientific information that will inform renewable energy development. The Fish and Wildlife Service would receive $3 million to ensure the protection of fish and wildlife throughout the development process.

Tackling Climate Impacts: Because Interior has direct responsibility for more than 20 percent of the U.S. land, including American Indian and Native Alaska trust natural resources, wildlife and coastal areas and is the largest provider of water in the West, the Department has a significant role to play in the nation’s response to climate change, including an expanded role in assessment and adaptation in order to protect these resources for future generations.

The initiative includes targeted increases of $22 million for the U.S.
Geological Survey to develop a cohesive monitoring strategy to determine impacts on Interior-managed lands, water and wildlife resources and assist land and water managers in devising strategies to address actual and anticipated changes. This includes an increase of $7 million for the USGS to assess potential carbon capture (sequestration) resources, including geologic formations and additional forestation and vegetation projects. An additional $40 million goes to land management bureaus to develop specific tools to address the effects of climate change. The States will also receive $40 million in grants to develop adaptation plans and implement strategies. These funds will allow States to plan for and develop adaptation strategies.

In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation budget includes $46 million to accelerate water conservation measures through grants, studies and water reuse and recycling programs, including an increase of $26 million for water challenge conservation grants. These water conservation strategies will assist Western communities in the management of precious water resources.

Empowering American Indian and Native Alaska Communities: Because education is critical for ensuring a stable, viable and prosperous future for tribal communities, the 2010 budget fulfills the Department’s ongoing commitment to advancing American Indian and Native Alaska education with an increase of $72 million to promote gains in student achievement and assist Indian students in attaining post-secondary education. The budget includes an increase of $10 million for Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula Funds, the primary source for the Bureau of Education’s 169 elementary and secondary schools and 14 dorms that serve about 42,000 students and residents. The total 2010 request of $391.7 million for ISEP formula funds also includes increases of $6.7 million in fixed costs for
teachers pay. Tribal colleges and universities are receiving a $55
million increase in 2010, including a one-time increase of $50 million that will forward-fund the tribal colleges to provide them greater financial security to plan for an entire academic year. The budget also includes increased funding for BIA law enforcement of more than $30 million to help Native Americans protect their communities by strengthening police programs and detention centers.

Protecting Treasured Landscapes: The proposed 2010 budget demonstrates the President’s commitment to preserving America’s treasured landscapes for future generations. The budget makes investments for the future in national parks with a $100 million program increase in National Park Service operations funding and $25 million in park partnership matching funds to leverage private donations in preparation for the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016. The NPS matching funds will result in a combined benefit to NPS of more than $50 million for signature projects and programs, thus doubling the Federal investment.

Land and Water Conservation Fund: The 2010 budget takes a measured approach to fulfill the commitment for fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It includes $420 million (including $120 million for U.S. Forest Service), putting the Administration on track to attain full funding of LWCF at $900 million by 2014. Interior’s 2010 funding includes $158 million – an increase of $57 million over 2009 – for protecting and preserving park, refuge, and other Federal lands through 17 projects in nine states. The department also will distribute $30 million – an increase of $10 million above the 2009 enacted level -- for State, tribal and local governments to create and protect park land, open space and wildlife habitat.

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: $100 million – an increase of $24.5 million -- for grants to States to support conservation of threatened and endangered species. Through a cost effective program, funds are leveraged by States, who can in turn, can distribute this funding to tribes, municipalities and private landowners.

Creating a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps: The budget includes $50 million to develop new ways to engage youth in nature in order to build an ethic for environmental protection. It makes an investment in the future and builds on existing efforts in the bureaus to instill a life-long commitment to protecting, preserving and enjoying our treasured lands and places. About $30 million will educate young hunters and anglers and wildlife managers through expanded U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, with a special emphasis on emerging constituencies that have not had access to outdoor activities. A $20 million component will expand existing partnerships with organizations, such as the Student Conservation Association, to inspire a new generation of nature lovers and stewards of our natural resources.

By the Numbers

Total proposed funding by bureau is as follows:

Bureau of Indian Affairs $2.5 billion
National Park Service $2.7 billion
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $1.6
billion
Bureau of Reclamation $1.0 billion
Central Utah Project Completion $42 million
Bureau of Land Management $1.1 billion
Minerals Management Service $181 million
U.S. Geological Survey $1.1 billion
Office of Surface Mining $159
million
Office of Insular Affairs $86 million
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians $186 million
Department wide Programs $1.1
billion
Departmental Management $119 million

Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing legislation without further action by Congress will provide an additional
$6.1 billion, for a total FY 2010 Interior budget of $18.2 billion. In FY 2010, Interior will collect an estimated $14 billion in revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

More detailed information is in the FY2008 Interior Budget in Brief which is available online at: http://www.doi.gov/budget/2010/10Hilites/toc.html.

Poll - Salmon or Dams

2009-05-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

Suppot FCRPS BiOp - Don Brunell

2009-05-06T09:06:00.000-07:00

Washington View: Legal wrangling doesn't help fish, or utility ratepayers
Monday, May 4 | 9:04 p.m.

BY DON BRUNELL

It is time to stop the legal and political posturing over salmon recovery on the Columbia and Snake rivers and implement the comprehensive plan approved by federal agencies, three of four Northwest states, six Native American tribes and legions of groups and individuals.

That agreement, referred to as the BiOp — Biological Opinion — would end decades of legal wrangling and implement a plan that was carefully constructed after three years of research and negotiations among all the parties. It includes progress "check-ins" in 2013 and 2016 and contingency actions if expected fish benefits don't materialize.

Now the BiOp is sitting in a federal courtroom where a single judge controls its fate. It is not cheap, but the price tag could go significantly higher if it is tossed out.

Over the years, Pacific Northwest electric ratepayers have paid billions in higher electric bills to fund salmon recovery plans and litigation. The best estimates are that families, businesses, hospitals, schools and industries pay 20 percent more for power because of salmon recovery.

The BiOp commits another $10 billion over a decade to implement the agreement, yet that doesn't seem to satisfy those who want to tear out the lower Snake River dams, draw down reservoirs on the Columbia and keep litigating.

Continuing the litigation may be an economic stimulus gift to attorneys and may help environmental activists raise millions in donations, but is it good for fish and the people who depend on the two rivers for their livelihoods?

The answer is no. The current BiOp is the closest we will get to a cooperative strategy to improve salmon runs.

In reality, salmon numbers have increased recently, rather than decreased. The Northwest experienced higher returns of Chinook salmon in 2001 and 2003 than before the Bonneville Dam was built in 1938.

Last year saw near record returns of fish for several species, including sockeye runs which were the highest in 50 years. Scientists predict 300,000 spring Chinook will return this year (the third-highest return since 1977) and 70,000 summer Chinook, well above the 10-year average. Snake River wild fall Chinook returns have approached delisting levels the past few years.

Scientists also point to ocean conditions as the most significant single factor in fish survival. In fact, they have not been able to correlate increased survival of young salmon through the hydro system with higher numbers of returning adults.

Survival is now higher with the eight federal dams than previously seen with only four dams. It is even higher than in undammed rivers such as the Fraser River in British Columbia, Canada.

Dam removal extreme?

Removal of the Snake River dams would affect only four of the 13 listed salmon and steelhead stocks at enormous cost and uncertain biological benefits. It would threaten the Northwest's economy, add 4.4 million tons of carbon dioxide each year to the atmosphere, undermine national and regional climate change goals, and hamstring the region's ability to develop more wind power.

Those dams provide enough electricity at peak load times — the period customers need power most — to light Seattle. We're already losing 1,100 megawatts of power — enough for a million homes — because the water is spilled rather than run through turbines. Removing the Snake River dams will further raise electricity costs and significantly increase the possibility of blackouts and power shortages.

So what do people think about removing dams?

According to a recent Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. poll of 700 registered voters in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, 88 percent identified hydro as a renewable source of electricity, similar to how they view wind and solar. Moreover, 93 percent believe hydropower is an essential and important use of the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Two-thirds of the voters in the Pacific Northwest oppose breaching dams on the lower Snake River, viewing dam removal as too extreme.

Given near record salmon runs, the protections provided by the BiOp and our tough economic times, what purpose does it serve to prolong the legal process and add more costs to people who are struggling just to pay for groceries, electricity and rent?

Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state's chamber of commerce. Visit www.awb.org.

Michael Connor Senate Confirmation Hearing

2009-05-06T08:36:00.000-07:00

May 5, 2009

NEWS REPORT

FROM: Kris Polly
Water Strategies, LLC

SUBJECT: Mike Connor Confirmation Hearing to be Reclamation Commissioner

On May 5 at 9:45 am, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a confirmation hearing for Mike Connor, nominated to be Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Daniel B. Poneman, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy, David B. Sandalow, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs and Domestic Policy), and Rhea S. Suh, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The hearing lasted 50 minutes and was attended by Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Senators John Barasso (R-WY) and Robert Bennett (R-UT).

After the panelists completed their opening statements, Chairman Bingaman thanked the nominees and noted that, after Mike Conner's eight years of service to the committee, the "Obama Administration's gain was certainly the committee's loss."

The committee went through two rounds of questions, with Mike Connor receiving only two of them. Senator Murkowski asked him his views regarding Reclamation's response to climate change, and Senator Barasso asked about resolving interstate and intrastate water disputes. In answering Senator Murkowski's question, Mr. Connor discussed Reclamation's water storage capabilities, clean energy production through hydro, and responsibility to work with customers. In his response to Senator Barasso, Mr. Connor stated it was important for "all water rights holders involved to be at the table."

While the exact timing of a Senate floor confirmation vote is open to speculation, it could come at any time.

The hearing room was filled to its seating capacity and nearly a dozen people were standing.

A copy of Mr. Connor's testimony is attached.

Should you have any questions or want additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by phoning (703) 517-3962 or e-mailing Kris.Polly@waterstrategies.com.

Statement of Michael Connor
Nominee for Commissioner of Reclamation
Before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
May 5, 2009
Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am fortunate to be joined today by my wife Shari, our two children Matthew and Gabriela, and my parents, Carl and Bea Connor. Needless to say, without their love and support through the years, I would not be in the position I am today. For that, I am grateful.

As most of you know, I am in a unique position relative to most nominees, having spent the last 8 years serving on the staff of this Committee. Given that background, I hope you'll indulge me a brief comment on my tenure here. In short, these years have been the highlight of my professional career. During this time, I have been privileged to work with and for, individuals who represent the most positive aspects of public service. Notwithstanding competing interests, my colleagues have demonstrated time and again, a remarkable ability to stay focused on an overriding goal -- addressing the country's energy and natural resource challenges in a manner reflecting good public policy. Simply put Mr. Chairman, they follow your example.

Similarly, I have had the good fortune to work with high-quality professionals on the other side of the aisle. In the area of water policy, we have worked closely together and have agreed much more than we have disagreed. But even in those instances in which we did not share similar views, we typically found sufficient common ground to make progress. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing that approach in my new position.

Finally, I cannot do justice in conveying the value of the support and the friendships that exist on the Committee and in your personal office, Mr. Chairman. Through both good and difficult times, I have benefited by witnessing the strength, intellect, modesty, and good humor, by which you and my colleagues have dealt with the personal and professional challenges arising during the past 8 years. I will miss working here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, to both you and my colleagues, for the opportunities provided me here.

I am now afforded an incredible opportunity to be a part of President Obama's administration, and to work with Secretary Salazar and the talented team he is putting together at the Interior Department. I am excited at the prospect but recognize the enormous challenges ahead in addressing water issues facing the seventeen western states. Similar to energy, water is fundamental to the economic well-being of the West. Its use, of course, has enormous implications for the environment. We have not always struck the right balance between these important and sometimes competing interests. If confirmed, I will continue efforts to find that balance, and to do so as efficiently as possible.

Taking the helm of the Bureau of Reclamation is a monumental task. As a New Mexican, one who understands the importance of water in the West, it is a job that I will relish. Water is a recurring part of my family history. My maternal grandfather was an original member of Taos Pueblo's water rights task force. My paternal grandfather was part of the construction crews that built the aqueduct tunnels delivering water to New York City out of the Catskill Mountains. And one of my great-grandfathers was seasonally employed cleaning ditches for an irrigation district in Southern Colorado. I have been lucky in my career to carry on a family tradition associated with water.

As for my qualifications, I am confident that my background as an engineer and lawyer and my experience in the private sector and in government have prepared me well for this position. First, I understand the issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation. Drought, climate change, aging infrastructure, increasing population, environmental needs, and site security are all issues that drive a great deal of Reclamation's actions these days. We have made tremendous progress in this Committee in establishing the programs necessary to confront these issues. It is my hope that the Senate will now allow me to work on the implementation side.

Second, I am familiar with the talented staff at the Bureau of Reclamation and I have a general understanding of how the organization functions. At the same time, I have a perspective that is external to the organization which should enable me to assess its operations objectively and offer a different view on how to improve the agency's mission.

Finally, I am fully aware that the key to making progress on critical water and hydropower issues is to work cooperatively and openly with the different constituencies involved in these issues. The states, water users, power users, environmental community, Indian tribes, scientists, and several Federal agencies, all have an important role to play. Progress on seemingly intractable issues will only come through a cooperative effort based on a fundamental recognition of the legitimate interests of each of these stakeholders and a serious commitment to achieving long-term certainty in water use and allocation. Without that commitment, water policy will continue to be formulated in the courtrooms rather than the negotiating table.

Of course, the Congress will be at the center of any problem-solving actions which involve the Bureau of Reclamation. As I've already acknowledged, I have a deep respect for this institution and look forward to working closely with Members and staff to address the water and energy challenges facing their constituents.

Thank you for the opportunity to address my nomination. I will be happy to respond to your questions at the appropriate time.

Kris Polly
Water Strategies LLC
P.O. Box 100576
Arlington, Virginia 22210
(703) 517-3962 Direct
(866) 941-9068 Fax

Kris.Polly@WaterStrategies.com

2009-05-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

WETLANDS: Congress preps for regulatory battle (05/05/2009)
Katherine Boyle, E&E reporter
Congress is gearing up for a battle over federal wetland regulation as Democrats and the Obama administration move to clarify two recent Supreme Court decisions they say narrowed Clean Water Act protections for some wetlands.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday that she wants to move legislation on the matter and is hoping to work with her colleagues to reach a compromise.
The panel is eyeing legislation that would amend the Clean Water Act by replacing the phrase "navigable waters" with "waters of the United States." Controversy over the meaning of "navigable waters" has persisted since CWA was passed in 1972.
Supporters of the bill introduced last month -- S. 787, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) -- say the measure would restore the original meaning of "waters of the United States," which they claim was eviscerated by the 2006 Rapanos-Carabell and 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decisions in the high court.
Opponents of the effort, including the committee's ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), have said the legislation would expand wetland protections beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act, lead to a number of lawsuits, and create problems for farmers, developers and other industry stakeholders. Inhofe and other Republican members of the committee have asked Boxer to hold a full committee hearing before marking up the bill.
Boxer said the divide often reflects a lawmaker's particular interests, such as agriculture, and does not always follow party lines. "A lot of the issues fall along regional lines," she said yesterday.
East Coast Democrats on the committee including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) are backing the legislation. In the past, however, Western Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has avoided endorsing the bill.
House action
On the House side, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) frames the squabble over Congress' intent a bit more simply.
"Congress made it clear that the Clean Water Act covers tributaries of navigable waters, many streams and most wetlands," he said last week. "I know this because I was there."
As Congress was finalizing the law in 1972, Dingell spoke about the Clean Water Act on the House floor. "The conference bill defines the term 'navigable waters' broadly for water quality purposes," he said in his speech. "It means all 'the waters of the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not mean 'navigable waters of the United States' in the technical sense as we sometimes see in some laws."
Today, Dingell affirms that notion. "For whatever reason, the Supreme Court seemed to feel that language was unclear," he said. "The Clean Water Restoration Act [S. 787] would clear up any doubt that remains."
Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) is planning to reintroduce a companion bill in the House this session.
White House support
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has made its support for a congressional fix clear.
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has called on Congress to pass legislation that would set clear boundaries for federal wetland regulators.
She said yesterday that staff members in the agency's water office spend half or more of their time working with states on jurisdictional issues for wetlands, describing the time spent "an alarming figure." She said the effort leaves staff with less time to work on actual permits with states.
EPA officials confirmed that the jurisdictional confusion created by Rapanos has been a major drain on resources for the agency in an inspector general report released yesterday.
The Rapanos ruling has affected nearly 500 enforcement cases. In each case, formal enforcement was not pursued due to jurisdictional uncertainty, case priority was lowered because of the confusion, or lack of jurisdiction was cited as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action.
The agency had difficulty crafting a guidance that could help field staff determine jurisdiction, the report notes.
Furthermore, EPA estimates 20 million acres of wetland and isolated waters lost protections in the lower 48 states thanks to the muddled Supreme Court decisions (E&ENews PM, April 14).
Stakeholders
Despite the presidential support, the debate among hunting and fishing groups, environmentalists, and industry stakeholders remains fiery.
The traditionally conservative "hook and bullet" crowd has joined with environmentalists in supporting Feingold's bill.
"The bottom line is virtually all waters of the United States are connected in one way or another," said Scott Yaich, senior director of conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited. "It's really not possible to separate out waters that don't have some impact on ... navigable waters in some form."
Yaich said so-called geographically isolated wetlands often are anything but. "In the case of prairie potholes, the poster children of geographically isolated wetlands, they appear to be isolated ... but at certain water elevations they do have a connection."
He also pointed out that draining wetlands frequently exacerbates the height and frequency of flooding in navigational waters and said contamination can spread from wetlands to navigable waters through groundwater.
The congressional fix should not be a partisan issue, Yaich added, though he acknowledged Democrats have been leading the charge and are the only cosponsors of the Senate bill to date.
"It's become clear the courts are going to be left to vacillate [on Congress' intent] and try to interpret the Supreme Court decision," Yaich said. "Congress just needs to clarify what the intent was and restore the intent through legislation."
Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations at the American Farm Bureau, however, has a different take.
"It would be a mistake [to think] Congress did not mean to include the term 'navigable' in the Clean Water Act," he said. "It's there well over 80 times. ... As we read the Clean Water Act, that's the only limiting term we find."
In the past, Parrish said federal agencies overreached in their regulation of wetlands. He said the Rapanos and SWANCC decisions were aimed at putting regulation back on the right course.
"Returning to a time when agencies could broadly use migratory birds to find Clean Water Act jurisdiction is not a very appealing position to be in for farmers and ranchers," Parrish said. He warned that Feingold's bill could spur the regulation of ditches or eroded areas.
"I would hope there's a broad understanding in Congress when you delete the term 'navigable' you're expanding Clean Water Act jurisdiction," he said. "There are no limits to be found in any of the proposals I have seen out there."

2009-05-04T10:59:00.001-07:00

SALMON: Obama admin delays Columbia River plan (05/04/2009)
A top White House official has requested further evaluation of a Bush administration plan to balance the needs of salmon and people near the Columbia River.
A letter sent Friday by the Justice Department to U.S. District Judge James Redden in Portland, Ore., requested a delay of up to two months to "more fully understand all aspects" of the plan, which environmentalists have argued would do little to help salmon.
The Bush administration submitted the plan last May to Redden, who had set a Friday deadline for the government to respond to the long-running case.
Environmental groups have argued that salmon populations will not recover until some of the hydroelectric dams in the area are removed. Four dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington state have created a migration bottleneck, threatening imperiled salmon and steelhead.
Todd True, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation, along with other environmental groups, said the two-month delay was encouraging (Matthew Daly, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 1). -- PT

2009-05-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

Article from the Marten Law Group:

Obama Administration Revokes Bush-Era ESA Consultation Rule; Decision on Polar Bear Rule Still Pending
By Jessica Ferrell

On April 28, 2009, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar announced that their departments are revoking a controversial Endangered Species Act (the "ESA" or the "Act") regulation promulgated at the close of the Bush Administration. The rule briefly allowed federal agencies conducting, permitting or financing projects to decide on their own whether the projects would adversely affect listed species and require consultation with federal resource managers under Section 7 of the Act (the "Consultation Rule"). In a joint statement, the Secretaries announced their determination that the Bush administration's "11th hour regulation ... undermined [ESA] protections." The decision, reached after the departments were directed by President Obama and Congress to reconsider the Consultation Rule, reinstates a process that has been criticized as unduly burdensome. In light of those concerns, the Administration promised to review the 1986 consultation regulations to decide whether to propose any changes to the process. For the foreseeable future at least, it is back to business as before at NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FULL ARTICLE »

Congressman Adrian Smith interview

2009-04-30T08:37:00.000-07:00

Interview by Kris Polly of Water Strategies with Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE)
___________________

Congressman Adrian Smith Shares Views on Reclamation Stimulus and Western Water Issues

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE), a member of the House Water and Power Subcommittee, discussed his views on the importance of water infrastructure, the Reclamation stimulus package and the need for increased communications from customer and stakeholder organizations. A transcript of the April 24, 2009, interview conducted by Kris Polly of Water Strategies, LLC is provided below.

Kris Polly: Congressman Smith, as a member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, how would you characterize your views and concerns on water issues in Nebraska and throughout the West?

Congressman Smith: Water is vital to our economy and our rural way of life. Without it, especially with the droughts of late, for all intents and purposes we wouldn't have an economy. Also, I think the environment is better off from the responsible development we have had that leads to renewable energy, that leads to responsible irrigation practices, and that leads to increased recreation. So water provides a very diverse economy, actually.

Kris Polly: Since the Bureau of Reclamation's recently released list of projects to receive stimulus funds did not include Nebraska, what questions are you likely to ask during the stimulus hearing with Reclamation on next Tuesday, April 28?

Congressman Smith: I intend to ask a number of questions about how the Bureau of Reclamation will ensure transparency and accountability in how taxpayer and ratepayers funds are spent. It’s important that funds are targeted and spent on fixing infrastructure that will have long-term, positive consequences on water-related jobs. I also want to reflect on the GAO's report on the implementation of the spending bill in which they noted many states do not have a real ability to ensure the stimulus dollars are spent wisely and with accountability. What we have done in 3rd district is generate interest. We had a meeting last week on the stimulus which generated a standing room only crowd and I think that invites transparency and accountability.

Kris Polly: To your knowledge, are there any projects in Nebraska that are "shovel-ready" for Reclamation funding?

Congressman Adrian Smith Interview
Page 2 of 2

Congressman Smith: The Bureau has found that Nebraska doesn’t have any “shovel ready” projects, but I think we will hear from water and power users that there are indeed a few that should have made the list. Perhaps Governor Heinemann’s office would be able to reflect on that a bit. Even though Reclamation is a federal agency, the state really has a lot of authority for determining where those dollars should go.

Kris Polly: Given the tremendous water infrastructure needs throughout the West, would you share your thoughts on the language contained in the stimulus legislation that states "costs of extraordinary maintenance and replacement activities carried out with funds provided in this Act shall be repaid pursuant to existing authority, except the length of repayment period shall be as determined by the Commissioner, but in no case shall the repayment period exceed 50 years with interest . . . "

Congressman Smith: Well, farmers throughout Nebraska are experiencing high costs when it comes to fuel, electricity, feed and other input costs that are necessary in order to keep their operations going. Water costs are rising as well and this is making it hard for Nebraska agriculture, especially on those farm families dependent on Bureau of Reclamation irrigation projects. I would argue that they need flexibility when it comes to paying for extraordinary maintenance items at Reclamation projects and that provision should be a source of that flexibility. Above all though, Congress should not go in the opposite direction by passing a "one-size-fits-all" provision like the Clean Water Restoration Act. It sounds great, but details are what are creating problems. Instead, I think we need to enact regulatory and tax relief to provide that flexibility.

Kris Polly: Because water issues in Nebraska and the throughout the West are so important, what would you ask of water related organizations in the 17 Western States? How would you like them to work with you and your colleagues on the Water and Power Subcommittee?

Congressman Smith: There is nothing like open communication and sharing information of the front lines. As I said earlier, water is of the upmost importance, not only for agriculture producers, but everyone. It's vital to a small rural economy and it's vital to an urban economy. Whether it is irrigation or recreation or other infrastructure needs, we need to hear from people on the ground. They are the folks earning a direct paycheck from that economy.

Welcome to the New WSWRA Blog

2009-04-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the new WSWRA blog, a forum for WSWRA members and friends to gain information related to the world of western water policy. This blog may take a little time to get up and running so be patient for a while and I will get some newsworthy information posted in the near future.