So I think that this is a very logical project to consider and we hope we can make a good record here today.

I want to say that Mr. Casey, our committee consultant, is in the hospital and he will not be back with us for another week or two but we have some very able people here today taking his place.

We have a light committee because Congress adjourned yesterday for the weekend and most people went home for the Memorial Day weekend, so we are light on people, but we do have the chairman of our full committee here who is a long time member of this committee and very much interested in western water problems and an expert in this field.

With that I think we will call on our colleague, Mr. Runnels, the Congressman from the State of New Mexico, for any statement he would like to make and will give him an opportunity for insertion in the record of any statement his colleagues make. We will place those statements in the record following your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD RUNNELS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for once again allowing me the opportunity to express my complete support of H.R. 5042 which provides for the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Brantley project in New Mexico.

I am very pleased that several members of this committee were able to conduct field hearings in Carlsbad in order that they might have firsthand knowledge on the need for this project.

The people of the Carlsbad-Artesia areas have placed a very high priority on the need for this project to provide both flood protection and storage for irrigation water. As you can understand, water is very important to the residents of my State. It is extremely important to control flood waters and in turn to put these waters to beneficial uses.

Over three-quarters of our annual rainfall occurs from May to October in the form of showers or thunderstorms. The rainstorms are often of short duration, but can be destructive in nature and often result in flash flooding which, unless controlled, can result in costly damage.

Numerous studies have been made of the Pecos River Basin in past years. One such report made on the Brantley project shows that the present McMillan Dam comes very close to violating the Safe Dam Act. Silt has built up to a point that McMillan Dam is rapidly losing its capacity to hold enough water to adequately have protection against flooding.

It is therefore understandable why the communities located below the present storage facilities are so strong in their support of this project. Many of the oldtimers have seen the Pecos River in flood stage and are keenly aware of the hazards when the water is not controlled.

Much of the Southwest, including New Mexico, this year is facing a drought situation since they have received less than an inch of rain.

This fact points out the need for adequate storage facilities to receive the water during periods of heavy rainfall for usage when sufficient rainfall does not occur.

In addition to providing storage water to the farmers and ranchers of the valley, this water would also provide recreational activities for some 200,000 people in the area. Significant economic benefit could result for the tourist industry of this area.

The storage facility would also provide for a conservation of fish and wildlife resources in this area which does not have an abundant supply of water available for wildlife usage.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate the fact that the committee has given so much of its time to listen to the testimony of many people in our State who are earnestly seeking your support for this project.

Once again, I would like to urge you to give approval to H.R. 5042 in order that a major step can be taken toward that realization of a project that is extremely important to New Mexico.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, to those departments that would ask and recommend that this legislation would be deferred, I would say had they lived in New Mexico and if they understood the problems, I don't think they could honestly ask that this legislation be deferred any longer.

We in Government can study things to death, but in the meantime we will lose lives. With that, Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you for your support for H.R. 5042. The contents of your statement here I think point up the two or three principal items of support for the project; the flood hazard and the conservation of water and the enhancement of fish and wildlife and recreation. Having looked over the area, I can see all of these would beyond a question of doubt be enhanced. There is not much rainfall in this area, and when it comes, it is heavy, so you need a facility there to handle the water and regulate the flow of the Pecos River. There is no question about it.

Does the gentleman from Colorado have anything?

Mr. ASPINALL. I do want to thank my colleague for his statement. I do not know whether he understands the handicap this committee is under because I know of no project that has been offered by this committee that didn't have a feasibility report of some kind.

The report of the Department certainly doesn't give us any criteria. to go by as far as the requirements of the feasibility study is concerned. I can understand the need for the project and certainly sympathize with my colleague and I will be as helpful as I possibly can. Mr. JOHNSON. Does the gentleman from California have anything? Mr. HOSMER. Thank you. I am delighted to have you here today, Mr. Runnels and I do share the same problem that Chairman Aspinall does in respect to the preliminary requirements that are usually made in connection with these authorizations, however, as a former worker in the area, I am familiar with the area, and I am certainly sympathetic.

Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you.

Do you have any statements from your colleague, Mr. Lujan? Mr. RUNNELS. I will enter for the record the statement of Senator Anderson and Senator Montoya.

79-059-72-pt. 2- -2

Mr. JOHNSON. The statements of Senator Anderson, and Senator Montoya will follow your statement here, and if you will make sure that the clerk of the committee receives a copy, they will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statements of Senator Anderson and Senator Montoya in full follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

I am pleased to present this statement this morning in support of S. 50, which was introduced in the Senate by Senator Montoya and me and which passed the Senate on March 30, 1972, and on Congressman Runnels' bill, H.R. 5042, now before your committee. These bills would authorize the construction, operation and maintenance of the Brantley Dam project on the Pecos River north of Carlsbad, N. Mex. This project, which has as its most important purpose the removal of a severe flood threat from the city of Carlsbad and the Pecos Valley below McMillan Dam, has been under consideration in one form or another for more than a decade. Since that time, the need for the project has repeatedly been developed and documented.

Since June of 1969, the Bureau of Reclamation has known that this project is feasible and economically justified from an engineering standpoint. Texas and New Mexico, the two States concerned with water flow in the Pecos River, have long since endorsed this proposal. Now it is 1972 and the time to make a decision. Completion of the project would have numerous salutary effects.

The proposed dam would provide needed replacement storage for the existing Carlsbad reclamation project. At present, irrigation water for the project is stored behind McMillan Dam-which Brantley would replace-but there are several problems with McMillan. It is leaking; its capacity has been substantially diminished by sedimentation; and, worst of all, there is grave danger that the dam may fail in the event of a flood. Indeed, a flood in 1966 resulted in two deaths and in more than $1 million of property damage in Carlsbad. It has been estimated that a large flood, which could occur under existing conditions, would result in property damage in excess of $30 million, accompanied by considerable loss of life. This danger must be averted, and construction of the Brantley Dam would be one way to avert it.

Additional benefits would accrue to the public through increased recreational facilities. The National Park Service has estimated that 383,000 persons annually would take advantage of the reservoirs behind Brantley Dam and of the facilities which could be constructed at the Alamogordo Reservoir, the upstream storage reservoir of the Carlsbad project. The project also would provide for conservation and improvement and development of fish and wildlife resources in the area. Moreover, completion of the project would allow work authorized by two previous laws to proceed.

Public Law 85-333 authorized the construction of Malaga Bend and the McMillan Delta channelization divisions of the McMillan Delta project. Public Law 88-598 authorized the elimination of salt cedar and other phreatophytes from the authorized floodway. Both these laws, however, provided that work could not commence until certain conditions relative to the dam and its storage capacity were improved. This project fulfills the conditions of the earlier laws. Other witnesses will detail more fully the expected benefits, many of which also are discussed in a feasibility report for this project issued in 1969.

I was somewhat surprised to read in the Department's report of January 17, 1972, to the committee that the feasibility report is still "being prepared for transmittal to Congress." In 1969, the project seemed to be well on its way. A feasibility report was adopted and approved by Assistant Secretary James Smith on July 2, 1969. This report then was submitted to the interested States and Federal agencies. New Mexico approved the report in October 1969 and the State of Texas on December 30 of that same year.

I tried to get the report released to me early in the 91st Congress but I did not get it until late in 1970. In the meantime, I introduced S. 3877 to authorize the Brantley Dam project, but it was too late in the session to get any action. Therefore, I reintroduced the bill in the 92d Congress, and this is the bill under discussion now.

By March 17, 1971, copies of an updated version of the proposed feasibility report and a draft environmental statement had been sent to the proper authorities in New Mexico. New Mexico approved and returned the documents on May 13, 1971, and I was advised by Commissioner Armstrong of the Bureau of Reclamation on June 16, 1971, that the report would be processed as quickly as possible. That was 7 months ago. I find it difficult to believe that it would take 7 months to complete the report to the Congress when the Department had a feasibility report available 3 years ago and has had 3 months' notice that a hearing was to be held on the authorization of the project. Moreover, I am advised that the final updating of this report was completed in August 1971. I believe that the Department should submit this updated report immediately.

Evidently the report is being held while the Department considers general legislation which might some day establish a program to correct all the deficiencies in the Nation's dams uncovered by the safety of dams survey. But this is no excuse for delay in this project now. We know the dangers to Carlsbad and we know what we must do to correct them.

I have had some uneasy feelings about reports of a disagreement between the Pecos River Pumpers Association-whose members are users of water above McMillan Reservoir-and the members of the Carlsbad irrigation district. I understand that the Pumpers irrigate about 3,900 acres with Pecos River water. They are fearful that construction of Brantley Dam will result in the establishment of operating criteria for release of water from the Alamogordo Reservoir which would dry up the Pumpers' water supply during the season when it is most needed.

I understand that since passage of the Senate bill, the Pumpers Association the New Mexico State Engineer's Office, the Pecos River Commission in New Mexico, and the Carlsbad irrigation district have been working on language to alleviate the disagreement in regard to the criteria for operating the Pecos River projects. I hope language can be worked out that will be included in the House version of the bill so that there will be no disagreement between these interests when the bill is finally passed.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MONTOYA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today for the purpose of giving my strongest endorsement to H.R. 5042.

This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate and maintain the Brantley Dam project on the Pecos River Basin in New Mexico. The proposed Brantley project, which is authorized by this legislation, is a multipurpose project designed to cure many of the ills of the existing facilities at the Carlsbad irrigation project.

At the present time, the existing facilities consist of the Alamogordo, Avalon, and McMillan Dams. In 1969, however, the "safety of dams" investigation conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation concluded that the spillways at these facilities were inadequate to pass a potential disastrous flood, and that the dams would be overtopped resulting in their failure.

The main purpose for constructing the Brantley project, Mr. Chairman is to give the people of Carlsbad and surrounding rural areas a high degree of flood protection not presently available. The people of Carlsbad now live in constant fear of another disastrous flood similar to the 1966 disaster which took two lives and caused property damages in excess of $1 million. Flood control is a necessity to the people in Carlsbad, and the Brantley project satisfies this need.

The Carlsbad irrigation project serves a total of 25,000 acres of water right land and serves, directly or indirectly, the Eddy County population of approximately 5,300 people. A shortage of water for irrigation is not unusual, Mr. Chairman. The Brantley Dam project would alleviate this deficiency by providing adequate irrigation water storage capacity for 100 years.

Aside from the flood control and irrigation storage purposes of the Brantley Dam, recreational facilities are also encompassed in the overall design of this project. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the National Park Service have recommended the inclusion of recreational facilities at both the Brantley and Alamogordo Dam sites. Recreational activities would consist of boating, swimming, water skiing, camping, and fishing. It is estimated that the visitation to the two reservoirs will average around 400,000 persons annually.

Knowing of this committee's interest in conservation, it may please the members to know that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife concluded that it was satisfied that this project did provide for the conservation, improvement, and development of fish and wildlife resources.

I am sure that the members of this committee are wondering about the feasibility of repairing and upgrading the existing facilities at the Carlsbad irrigation project. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Reclamation, in its "safety of dams" report cited earlier, considered this alternative and immediately concluded that even if the existing dams were modified, they would provide neither the terminal storage needed for irrigation nor would it eliminate the threat of flooding. Further, Mr. Chairman, the cost of repairing these facilities was estimated in 1971 to be at approximately $27.7 million. Given this high cost of repair, the Bureau of Reclamation rightly concluded that a new facility was the more acceptable alternative. To be sure, Mr. Chairman, the new facility would have the added benefits of recreation, conservation, flood protection, and some increase in irrigation storage capacity.

Given the deficiencies which exist at the present facilities, and given the purposes for the construction of the Brantley project, I would like to turn briefly to a more specific physical description of the Brantley Dam project.

Brantley Dam and Reservoir would be constructed on the Pecos River, about 4 miles downstream from the McMillan Dam and 6 miles upstream from Avalon Dam. The reservoir would have a total storage capacity of 520,000 acre-feet. Of the initial storage capacity, 376,000 acre-feet would be used for terminal irrigation storage, 2,000 acre-feet for a minimum pool for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes, and 102,000 acre-feet for a sediment reserve. A more detailed examination of these figures will be undertaken at a later time by our State engineer, Mr. S. E. Reynolds.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that of foremost interest to this committee are the economic aspects of this project. Briefly, the construction cost of this project can be set forth as follows: The total overall cost of the project, including interest at 5% percent during construction, is estimated at $50.3 million. Of this total investment cost, approximately $1.08 million is designed for irrigation cost; $3.7 million for the recreation facilities, $2.7 of this amount would be nonreimbursable. Approximately $2.3 million is the estimated cost for fish and wildlife, and of this amount $2.2 million would be nonreimbursable funds. It is further estimated, Mr. Chairman, that flood control features of the project would total about $14 million, and of course all of this amount would be nonreimbursable. Finally, the total amount for the safety of dams is estimated at $29.1 million, all of which is nonreimbursable.

Mr. Chairman, the total cost of the Brantley Dam project is greatly insignificant to the cost of replacing the lives and property of residents of the Carlsbad and surrounding areas. The property value in urban Carlsbad alone is presently estimated at $92.5 million, while the rural areas are estimated to have a value of $1.5 million. And of course, Mr. Chairman, no value can be placed on human lives. I am hopeful that this committee will weigh these factors when deciding whether or not to give its approval to this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, it has been brought to my attention that the Department of the Interior has filed an adverse report to H.R. 5042, indicating their desire to have this project reevaluated to determine whether it conforms with the principles and standards proposed by the Water Resources Council. I submit that the suggestion for reevaluation is nothing but another in a long line of dilatory tactics of the Department of the Interior. In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, this project was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in 1969 and approved by them on June 17, 1969. Furthermore, this project was reevaluated and a supplemental report was submitted in August of 1971. Now it seems rather incredible to me that the Department of the Interior would even dare suggest an evaluation of the reevaulation.

In its report, the Department of the Interior also expresses some reservations about including the cost of repairing the existing facilities in the total budget of $45 million and including them as nonreimbursable funds. It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Government set the precedent for assuming the responsibility for maintaining the safety of its own unsafe structures when in 1954 it, with the approval of Congress, appropriated $1 million of nonreimbursable funds to repair the Alamogordo Dam on this same project. Therefore, what this project calls for by way of nonreimbursable funds is not unique, but in point of fact it is the practice of the Department of the Interior to consider such funds as nonreimbursable.