QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO GREATER NEW YORK CITY AREA WATER SUPPLY Question. It is obvious that the Greater New York Area consists of parts of several states. Do you consider the present water supply problems in this area to be of an interstate or regional nature, or are they discrete State or local problems? Answer. There is a mix of both kinds of problems. However, in terms of maintaining a satisfactory balance between the quantity of water available for intake to the distribution system and the water desired by the users, a more significant question for New York City is whether intrastate or local solutions to undesirable deficits are available. The Corps of Engineers in its NEWS Study of the New York Metropolitan Area found that the Connecticut portion of the Area has completed a plan and the New Jersey portion is developing a plan to meet water requirements with intrastate projects. This study also found that most feasible way to supplement existing water supplies in southeastern New York State would be an intrastate project to divert high flows from the Hudson River. Question. In your opinion, what are the most significant water supply needs and problems in the Greater New York Area? Answer. The needs are threefold. One is to assure continued operation of existing facilities through adequate maintenance programs and construction of facilities that guarantee reliable operation. A second is to meet present and future water demands at a reasonable cost. The most practical means to do this is to implement conservation measures that will reduce losses and demands on the system and, at the same time, to plan for and implement the most feasible means to increase supply so that unacceptable deficits are eliminated. The third need is to establish rate schedules which will provide adequate operational funds and will provide the basis for financing arrangements necessary to support the capital improvement program needed for the future. Question. Do local interests agree with your assessment of the problem? Answer. We expect they do; however, local interests themselves are in the best position to address their commitment to the measures necessary for financing operations and improvements. Question. The present NEWS Study authorization (PL 98-298) recognized the Federal responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs, conveyance facilities and purification works for water supply. This was further reflected last year when the Congress, in the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 83 Supplemental Appropriations Bill, expressed its concern about the water supply problems of the Greater New York Area and requested the Corps of Engineers to prepare a plan of action addressing those concerns. your professional opinion, what actions are needed next? In Answer. Public Law 98-298 did recognize an expanded Federal role for water supply in the Northeast; however, this role was to be in connection with systems of reservoirs and exchanges between river basins. We have seen no new proposals for the New York Metropolitan Area which meet these requirements. As far as the actions needed, in our opinion, the next actions should be taken by non-Federal agencies responsible for serving the Greater New York Area. Question. What is the likelihood of failure in New York City Water Tunnel #1 or #2 during the interim construction period of Tunnel #3? Answer. The engineers involved in the design, operation and maintenance of the tunnels are best qualified to answer this question. Question. If a failure requiring total shutdown of one of the tunnels were to occur, what would be the consequences? Answer. Certainly the consequences could be expected to be serious. Those officials of the areas served by these tunnels, and who are responsible for organizing the response to such an event are in the best position to provide details concerning consequences. Question. What can be gained from the optimum construction schedule for Tunnel #3? Answer. The tunnel of course would be completed sooner. Beyond that, we would defer to the officials of the areas served by these tunnels who, in our judgment, are best qualified to provide details concerning the expected benefits of optimum construction. Question. If there is a deficit of supply to the New York City area at the present time, how long will it take to construct supply facilities to eliminate the deficit? Answer. The Corps has estimated that if there were total agreement and the proposed solution could be initiated now, about twenty years would pass before a major supply project would become operational. This period would consist of project planning and project design time as well as the construction time and assumes that financing would be available when needed. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DECONCINI UPPER GILA RIVER BASIN Question. Could you provide for the record a current status report on the joint Corps and Bureau of Reclamation study on alternative flood proposals for the Upper Gila River and Tributaries. If that study has been completed, could you provide the study recommendations or, if the study has not been completed, could you give the committee a date when you will finish the study. Answer. The cooperative basinwide study will be completed in September 1984 and will identify the best overall solution to flooding and water supply problems in the study area. The Corps' overall feasibility study for the Upper Gila River will be completed by September 1987. Question. I have been advised that there has been discussion about the possibility of constructing multipurpose dams at the Quail Springs site on the San Francisco River and the Conner site on the Gila River in New Mexico. Have these sites been reevaluated after the October floods? Answer. These sites are being evaluated under our joint Upper Gila River basinwide study with the Bureau of Reclamation. This evaluation is considering new knowledge gathered as a result of the October 1983 floods. Question. Is any consideration being given to the possibility of including Hooker Dam as an alternative under this study? Answer. Hooker Dam is still an available alternative. However, we understand that the State of New Mexico considers the Conner site a preferable alternative. Question. Could a dam at the Hooker site be constructed under the authority of the Central Arizona Project or under the Corps authorization for Camelsback Dam? Could you elaborate on these issues? Answer. It is our understanding that a dam at the Hooker site was authorized as an element of the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Arizona Project and could be constructed under that authority. A dam at the Hooker site could not be constructed under the Corps' authority for Camelsback Dam. PHOENIX ARIZONA AND VICINITY Question. Could you detail the construction activities to be completed in fiscal year 1985 for the Stage 2 project? Answer. The Adobe Dam is complete. In fiscal year 1985 we will complete construction of the New River Dam including cultural resources preservation and acquisition of permanent operating equipment. Question. Is the $7.5 million request sufficient to keep this project on track? Answer. Yes, with that amount the project schedule can be maintained. Question. What is the schedule for completion of construction activities? Answer. The New River Dam will be completed in May 1985. The first of four contracts for the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel will be awarded in 1985. Our construction activities for the entire project are scheduled for completion in September 1991. Question. What is the estimated total cost for remaining work? Answer. The estimated total cost for work remaining after fiscal year 1985 is $214.6 million. Question. Do you anticipate any delays, and if so, for what reasons? Answer. We expect construction to proceed as scheduled. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Chairman HATFIELD. We will recess until February 21 at 10 a.m. when the Secretary of the Interior Clark will appear to present the Bureau of Reclamation requests. [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. Thursday, February 9, the subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m. February 21.] ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Abdnor presiding. Present: Senators Abdnor, Stennis, and Burdick. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HEARING PROCEDURE Senator ABDNOR. The hearing will come to order. Today, we are pleased to welcome to the committee William Clark, Secretary of the Interior, who will present an overview of the fiscal year 1985 budget request of the Department of the Interior and other policy issues which impact the water resource development programs of the Nation. Following Secretary Clark's oral remarks, I propose that we then proceed with any policy questions the members may have for the Secretary. Any questions on specific projects should be addressed to Commissioner Broadbent of the Bureau of Reclamation who will be testifying following Secretary Clark. With that, it is a pleasure to welcome you, Secretary Clark. Before proceeding, however, I would like to call on Senator Stennis. Senator STENNIS. Thank you for recognizing me. I am here as part of this subcommittee-I have been a member here a long time. I think back over the years of all that has happened since the end of World War II in the military weaponry and the programs of that kind that I am familiar with. However, the programs this subcommittee deals with have had and will have the most lasting benefit for the Nation as a whole. And the money that has been spent, virtually every dollar of it, has been on a constructive basis and it is already paying off and will continue to far beyond our time-I have to hold back some, I am being too strong, but constructive investment for future generations. And (205) 31-241 0-84--14 |