Hearing on Lewis and Clark, Dakota Water Studies, Tribal Hatchery, Reclamation

The subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will come to order. Good afternoon everyone, I want to welcome our members, witnesses and our guests. in the audience today. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of this subcommittee at any time. Under rule commu- under committee rule four F, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record, if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule three O. Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from South Dakota, Mister Johnson, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. We are here today to consider four legislative measures. The Lewis and Clark Regional Water Sit System Expansion Feasibility Study Act, sponsored by Representative Johnson of South Dakota. H R seven three three one, the Dakota main stem water supply project. feasibility study act also sponsored by representative johnson of south dakota hr seventy five fifteen to direct the secretary of the interior to convey the nisqually indian tribe the clear creek hatchery infrastructure sponsored by representative strickland of washington and hr eighty two fifty nine the federal water projects consultation improvement act of of twenty twenty six sponsored by representative bentz of oregon I now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. Today the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries will hold a legislative hearing on four bills. Our first two bills, introduced by Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies for the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System and the Dakota Main Stem Regional Water System, respectively. Like many other parts of the country experiencing population growth, South Dakota and the surrounding regions are experiencing increased demand for water resources. The Lewis and Clark Regional Water System currently uses wells and pipelines drawing from the Missouri River aquifer to serve more than three hundred and fifty thousand people in Southeast South Dakota Northwest Iowa and Southeast Minnesota. To make growing demand, the system will need to expand its water capacity in the coming years. The feasibility study authorized by this legislation is a key step. towards this goal. Likewise, the Dakota main stem regional water system, which was formed in twenty twenty three, would bring additional water supplies to South Dakota and the neighboring regions, including the Santee reservation of the Santee Sioux tribe in Nebraska. The feasibility study authorized by this bill would evaluate the benefits and costs of options to advance the project. I appreciate Congressman Johnson's work on these bills to deliver water supplies to his constituents. Our third bill, introduced by Congressman Cliff Bentz of Oregon, is the Federal Water Projects Consultation Improvements Act of twenty twenty six. This legislation seeks to strengthen and formalize coordination between federal agencies and local water contractors during Endangered Species Act, section seven consultations. Section seven consultations can significantly affect water deliveries to agricultural producers municipalities and rural communities. Water users know their systems and understand the trade-offs best, but are currently cut out from ESA consultations. To strengthen coordination between agencies and the local contractors, the bill grants water agencies several rights during consultations, including opportunities to regularly discuss and submit information, early notification and explanation when water deliveries may be reduced, and access to schedules for preparing biological assessments, and biological opinions. This bill expands a successful provision of the uh WIN Act west-wide. And I want to thank Congressman Bentz for his ongoing leadership and advocacy on this issue. Our last bill, introduced by Congresswoman Marilyn Strickland of Washington, would transfer ownership of the Clear Creek Hatchery from the federal government to the Nisqually Indian tribe which will increase opportunities for infrastructure maintenance and improvements. With that, I want to thank the witnesses and our members for being here today, and I yield back. I now recognize ranking member Hoyle for her opening statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. Um On today's agenda, we have two bills from my colleague, Representative Johnson, to require feasibility studies for regional supply water supply projects. The first of these bills is H R seven two eight seven, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System E- Expansion Feasibility Study Act. The Lewis and Clark Regional Water System has been under construction since two thousand four to provide reliable water to more than three hundred fifty thousand people across uh Southeast South Dakota Southwest Minnesota and Northwest Iowa. The second of these bills, H R seven three three one, the Dakota Mainstream Water Ply Project Disability Studies Act. This project is intended to address ongoing, sorry, o- ongoing water reliability challenges, including drought and water quality across South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. I appreciate Representative Johnson's leadership on reliable water access for growing communities in South Dakota and I look forward to hearing more about these bills today. Next we'll turn to Representative Strickland's bill, which would convey the Clear Creek hatchery in Washington to the Nisqually Indian tribe. The tribe has stewarded salmon in the Nisqually river for countless generations and has reserved fishing rights to the salmon in the basin. Today, salmon produced by the Clear Cree Creek hatchery are necessary to meet the harvest goals and conserva- conservation obligations. As part of the tribe's commitment to the salmon, it has managed the Clear Creek hatchery for decades, despite receiving no federal funding or staff support. But even though Clear Creek is located within the Nisqually tribe's reservation, the tribe handles all um operations and maintenance, the building and facilities are owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This makes the tribe ineligible for federal grants through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that could otherwise help fund capital improvements. It makes no sense and it's not working for anyone, least of all the salmon. Um, HR seven five one five would transfer ownership to the tribe, allowing them to assume full management and pursue relevant federal grants. I appreciate Chairman, uh, Cho being here to speak to the tribe's work and to support healthy salmon runs and how this transfer will make that work easier. So thank you. And finally, we have H. R. A two. five nine from my friend and colleague, Representative Cliff Bentz. This bill would require the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to consult with water users as part of the endangered species review process for the Bureau of Reclamation water projects. While this bill would apply nationally, I know there's significant interest in these issues in the Klamath Basin, and I'd like to thank Ms. Nielsen for traveling here to discuss this bill. Um, I fully support meaningful public input in federal decision making. And I believe decisions are stronger when they do reflect input and collaboration from all stakeholders. I have concerns that this bill would increase the input opportunities for one type of stakeholder though. Tribes, fishermen, conservation groups might not purchase federal water, but they do have a direct interest in ensuring water flows are sufficient for um endangered salmon populations. It also adds procedural requirements that would effectively require the services to provide analysis on alternatives and provide justification um for each component of a biological opinion, and I appreciate that transparency. But I have a concern the new requirements would slow down the ESA consultation process at a time when NOAA and Fish and Wildlife's services are historically short-staffed because of the massive cuts we've seen to our federal workforce. So, there's no funding for added staffing to address the added workload, and I think that that's important uh that we don't put forward um unfunded mandates. So, I remain open to learning more about this proposal, hearing from all perspectives, and I wanna ensure that um all voices uh are at the table and remain uh the priority. those balanced stakeholder engagements. And lastly, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Representative Strickland of Washington be allowed to participate in today's hearing, and I yield back.

Yes, without objection, so ordered. Um, I will now introduce our first panel, a and as is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. I now recognize Congressman Bentz for five minutes.

Thank you, uh, Chair Hagerman. Um, just a a couple of words before I read my prepared remarks, uh, as as to the remarks made by the ranking member regarding tribal involvement in in the, uh, consultation process under section seven, I would just draw her attention to the nineteen ninety-seven Secretarial Order Secretarial Order for Tribal Rights, under the ESA order number three two zero six, and also, uh, in the Federal Register, a second order, uh dated nineteen ninety four presidential memorandum on tribal consultation. And in both instances tribes are given under separate statute the right uh to be involved in these kinds of proceedings. And so they were not it was not necessary that we include them in this bill. They already have the right to uh to consultation protected uh under these orders. Uh now now moving uh moving on um uh the ranking member Hoyland, members of the and uh Chairwoman Hageman, members of the subcommittee Um, thank you for considering this bill. The Federal Water Projects Consultation Improvement Act of twenty twenty six. Outcomes of the ESA process are determined by the information and facts gathered by agencies implementing the law. Many times, according to my sources, agencies lack, agency decisions lack valuable input from people in communities who live with, depend upon and operate every day during the irrigation season, water use projects involved in the listing the critical habitat designations, and the recovery pro- plan process under the ESA. This bill does not change the Endangered Species Act or eliminate consultation requirements, but it does require that agencies provide project contractors with regular opportunities to participate in the development of biological assessments, review draft biological opinions, and provide input before decisions are finalized. Additionally, if agencies propose actions that reduce water deliveries, They must explain the legal basis, scientific justification, and why less harmful alternatives are not sufficient. The underlying concept of the bill is to increase the amount of on-the-ground information available to the agencies, and to improve the chances that the final product will be less likely to be challenged by water users and ultimately reflect a better, because of local input, outcome for the species. This bill would improve the ESA consultation process and nothing more. It ensures that people Most affected and most knowledgeable by these decisions are informed, included, and able to provide substantive input before the federal government acts. I urge the committee to support H HR eight two five nine. And um, chair, I offer or ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter dated April twenty third, twenty twenty six from the County of Siskiyou County of Modoc and Klymouth County, in support of the bill. Um.

With without objection, so ordered.

Second. Thank you. Yield back.

Thank you, Mister Bentz. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mister Huffman, for a five minutes opening statement.

Thank you Madam Chair, and good afternoon. Uh folks, today we're going to hear testimony on two bills seeking authorizations for feasibility studies for large multi-state water projects in the Midwest and a and a bill to transfer ownership of the Clear Creek Hatchery to the Nisqually tribe. Uh, for more than two decades the tribes run the facility. And uh, yet it has remained ineligible for federal funding simply because the Fish and Wildlife Service retains ownership. So conveying the hatchery to the tribe will allow them to continue this work more effectively and uh access federal resources that are currently unavailable. It's a straightforward bill to provide meaningful support to the tribe and the region's fisheries, and I support it. Uh, I also i- it also emphasizes the reality that the federal government must do better in fulfilling our trust and treaty. responsibilities. We have a terrible track record when it comes to meeting our obligations on tribal fisheries. While Congress has enacted major laws to protect species and invested significant resources in fisheries and ecosystem restoration, the administration continues to undermine that process at every turn. Under this administration, funding intended to support fisheries and restoration has been paused or canceled. Agency staff have been gutted and key programs have been jeopardized. The president's proposed fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget slashes funding further at all the key agencies. At the same time, the federal workforce is stretched thin. I think we all know that. Remaining staff are being asked to absorb the responsibilities of multiple positions. The consequences are very real. Projects are being delayed, cancelled. Stakeholders are left unsure who to contact while their projects sit in limbo. And on top of all that, Our Republican colleagues aren't letting up on their attacks to weaken the Endangered Species Act, despite its broad public support. Alarmingly, this administration has proposed significant rollbacks to what is considered harm to a species. Basic science shows us that destroying an animal's uh habitat or food source can kill the animal or hinder its ability to grow and reproduce. At the population level, these impacts can cause jeopardy. to the to the species, in other words extinction. But the administration is trying to narrow these definitions to avoid any consideration of a project's harm to habitat. That change would allow the administration to easily ignore any impact of water diversions on salmon, pushing them closer to extinction. H R eighty-two fifty-nine would further erode any consideration of salmon, and other endangered species in the Klamath Basin. This bill essentially adopts language from the California water subtitle of the twenty sixteen win act. Uh, and I was there when that bill passed, it was advanced by Republican leadership, jammed through in the final vote of that congress as part of WERTA, without hearings and without meaningful public input. It would provide water contractors with special access to consultation procedures in the development of biological opinions. while adding new burdens on already under-resourced agencies. Biological opinions are meant to be grounded in objective, science-based analysis in what is best for the species, not picking and choosing what groups are at the table and what we want to support. With this bill, we are essentially asking agencies to elevate one group, while tribes and other impacted parties are left without the same special opportunity to share information and shape decisions uh early in the process that affects species protection. So Congress should not be putting its thumb on the scale. It shouldn't be elevating one group of users ahead of tribal treaty rights, for example, or public trust responsibilities and other protections needed to prevent species from being pushed to extinction. It is a deeply one-sided approach that overlooks the diversity of needs and resources across stakeholders. Now I've heard directly from the tribes in my district that reclamation has not even consulted them. on their efforts to rewrite ESA rules in the Klamath Basin. Yet this bill before us would require agencies to give water contractors special rights, more information, more engagement opportunities, and ultimately more influence in the process than tribes are receiving right now. That is not fair. Tribes are sovereign governments, not stakeholders to be sidelined when their rights uh or concerns are inconvenient. The federal government shouldn't push them aside. to serve a political agenda for one group of water users. Uh, so, I have, uh, shared some of my concerns about this bill. I look forward to the conversation. I certainly look forward to continuing to try to work with Mister Benz and others on uh responsible outcomes in the basin. But as drafted, uh, I have deep concerns about this legislation. With that, I yield back.

Thank you. And I now recognize Congressman Johnson for five minutes. And thank you for joining us again.

Uh, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, uh, if you don't have water, not much else matters. And so with that, I just wanna uh provide a special thank you uh for hearing two of my bills today, and for allowing me to testify. Uh, they both did a deal with uh feasibility studies and working with the Bureau of Reclamation on two projects in eastern South Dakota uh not that long ago, the committee was nice enough to hear me out on a bill that would affect western South Dakota. But this is about the rapidly growing uh uh part of South Dakota on the east. And it it is uh it's uh it's rapidly growing, but in really an organic and healthy way. Growth that requires the right infrastructure and good long-term planning. And that's what these bills uh would help to do, because obviously if you don't have access to clean, safe and reliable water, uh you're in big trouble uh from a growth perspective. I'm gonna start by talking about Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. This water system that uh has uh is well known to Congress because it was first, authorized in the year two thousand. And it took, uh, twenty-four years to get its final member system connected, not just in South Dakota but also in Iowa and Minnesota. It has been a remarkable success story that has taken a tremendous amount of cooperation and partnership. Of course, the needs that were identified, uh, two or three decades ago are no longer sufficient to be able to deal with the needs of the next, uh, thirty or forty years. And as a result, we wanna do some additional feasibility studies as authorized by my bill seventy two eighty seven to project uh the long-term demand and and uh the future regional needs. The second bill deals with the Dakota main stem project. This is a a much newer project. Uh, in twenty twenty one, community leaders came together and understood that the existing regional water systems plus the aquifers were not gonna be sufficient to be able to provide for the long-term needs. Uh, and so they wanted to start the the the long-term planning process, and they have, and it's been very collaborative with a lot of very good stakeholders moving in the right direction. Uh, and now they've got more than fifty members in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. Uh, that project's appraisal study indicates that the Missouri River merits serious consideration as a reliable long-term water source. Uh, and indeed, uh, I think it is certainly more sustainable than some of the aquifers in the area. Uh, some of you may not know that there are already four dams uh, on the Missouri River, uh, main stem system, uh, just within South Dakota that provides good reservoirs and, uh, that they, they really do help, uh, support our way of life. Both bills authorize the Bureau of Rec- Reclamation to bring its technical expertise, expertise to the table to conduct needed, uh, feasibility studies, uh, evaluating engineering, environmental, economic factors in accordance with established federal standards. And again, I wanna thank you for uh holding this hearing. I look forward to working with the committee to advance these bills, uh and uh expand reliable water access for the communities across South Dakota. With that ma'am I would yield back.

Very important issues, thank you. The chair now recognizes Congresswoman Strickland for five minutes.

Thank you Chairwoman Higman, and Ranking Member Hoyle, and other members of this committee, subcommittee. I wanna thank you for considering my bill, HR seventy five fifteen, which will transfer the Clear Creek Hatchery to the Mesquali tribe. I first want to highlight the leadership of the Nskwali tribe in protecting salmon in the Pacific Northwest. For the state of Washington, salmon are not only a food source, they are the foundation of our economy and our way of life. Protecting and supporting salmon populations is fundamental for the livelihood and cultural identity of our tribal communities. Hatcheries like the Clear Creek site have developed, have helped our depleted salmon populations by providing a controlled environment, to breed and raise endangered and threatened species. The Clear Creek H Clear Creek Hatchery, through the Nisqually tribe's efforts, has brought salmon back to the Nisqually River and boosted salmon population growth. This hatchery produces nearly four point two million salmon a year. This land belongs to the Nisqually Indian tribe, but is currently owned by U S Fish and Wildlife Services. For the last several decades, the tribe has been shut out of key federal grant funding because of this. US Fish and Wildlife does not provide support to the hatchery with their own funds. The tribe has fully carried the cost burden to keep the hatchery running on their own tribal land, and is in desperate need of updating maintenance. Operational costs to maintain and improve the hatchery are expensive, and since the site is owned by US Fish and Wildlife, the tribe cannot apply for federal funding through agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Restoring hatchery ownership to the Nisqually tribe ensures they can gain access to key federal funding to address twenty years of deferred maintenance. This legislation allows a tribe to own what is rightfully theirs. This is an issue of tribal treaty rights, which is supported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In order to continue supporting salmon population growth in our region, this legislation is a necessary step forward to ensure the land is transferred to the Nisqually tribe so they can continue preserving their economic and cultural well-being. The Clear Creek site is incredibly important for our region's well-being, and I'm grateful to the tribes' partnership and leadership on this legislation. I urge the committee to advance H R seventy-five fifteen, so the Nisqually tribe can support salmon populations for generations to come and own what is rightfully theirs. I yield back.

Thank you for that. It sounds very interesting. I look forward to hearing more about that. particular bill. So thank you. I wanna thank the members for your testimony today in providing additional information. I will now introduce our second panel. Mister Troy Larson, Executive Director of Lewis and Clark Regional Water System from Tee, South Dakota. Mister Kurt Feifel, Executive Director of Dakota Main Stem Regional Water System from Madison, South Dakota. The Honorable Ken Choke, Chairman of the Nisqually Indian Tribe from Olympia, Washington. and Ms. Elizabeth Nielsen, Executive Director of Klamath Water Users Association from Klamath Falls, Oregon. Under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone, and we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And when you have uh at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red. And I will

Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the critical role the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System plays in delivering safe, reliable drinking water to communities across Southeast South Dakota, Northwest Iowa, and Southwest Minnesota. Lewis and Clark is a federally authorized locally governed tri-state water system that demonstrates how federal, state, and local partnerships can solve complex infrastructure challenges in a cost-effective and sustainable manner. And thank you to Congressman Johnson and the entire delegation of members that represent us, including Representatives Feenstra of Iowa, Fischbach of Minnesota, and Finstead of Minnesota. We are grateful for their leadership in sponsoring the legislation we are discussing today. Like our namesake explorers, Lewis and Clark is a trailblazer. It's the first of its kind water project involving the partnership of the federal government, three states, and twenty local entities. We are a wholesale provider of water to our twenty member cities and rural water systems. and will benefit an estimated three hundred and fifty thousand people in the tri-state region. Lewis and Clark was incorporated in nineteen ninety in response to a recognition by local leaders that they could not meet the future drinking water demands of a rapidly developing tri-state region on their own. Congress authorized the project in two thousand, assigning construction oversight to the Bureau of Reclamation, a critical partnership because reclamation does not otherwise operate in Iowa and Minnesota. Over more than two decades, reclamation engineers and staff have provided essential expertise in system design, construction oversight, environmental compliance, and cost control. Their involvement has ensured the project is built efficiently, responsibly, and in compliance with all federal and state requirements. It's important to note federal investment is limited to construction, under reclamation's rural water program. Lewis and Clark covers one hundred percent of the operation and maintenance expenses through water rates. So it is completely self-sustaining. Lewis and Clark began operating in two thousand twelve when the first eleven members were connected. The last member was finally connected in two thousand twenty four, but construction of the authorized system will not be completed until two thousand twenty eight. A full twenty eight years after the project was authorized. Reliable access to high quality water is foundational to economic development and quality of life particularly in rural areas. Water from Lewis and Clark that our members have put to beneficial use supports existing manufacturers food processors health care facilities and agricultural businesses while enabling future economic growth that simply would not be possible without a dependable water supply. While Lewis and Clark was designed to meet near-term demand, population and economic growth make it clear that additional capacity will be needed in the coming decades. Water infrastructure requires long planning horizons, as Lewis and Clark has demonstrated. To ensure our communities can support new housing, attract employers, and remain competitive in the future, we are already planning for the members' water needs for the next forty years, which is a time horizon required by reclamation. To that end, Lewis and Clark is seeking congressional support to authorize reclamation to participate in a feasibility study that will examine projected growth future demand and infrastructure options to ensure the region can continue to thrive while maintaining responsible stewardship of federal, state, and local investments. In conclusion, Lewis and Clark reflects Congress's vision that strategic collaborative infrastructure invest investments can deliver lasting value. The project provides safe drinking water, supports economic growth, strengthens regional resilience, and does so through a model that maximizes efficiency and local responsibility. As Lewis and Clark approaches completion of its authorized system, continued federal partnership is essential to ensure the region is prepared for the water demands of the future. Proactive planning today will help avoid far greater cost tomorrow and ensure communities across the three states remain strong and vibrant. Thank you very much.

I now recognize Mister Feifeli for five minutes.

Chairwoman Hagelin and uh Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Kurt Feifeli. I serve as the Executive Director of the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System. I'd like to begin by thanking South Dakota Congressman Justy uh Dusty Johnson for his leadership in advancing this legislation, and for his continued uh focus on long-term water planning in our region. Dakota Mainstem is a multi-state, regional effort representing communities, rural water systems, and other public entities across eastern South Dakota, southwest Minnesota, northwest Iowa, and northeast Nebraska. Today Dakota Mainstem includes more than fifty members. Fifty seven to be precise. Reflecting a growing recognition that water supply challenges are regional in nature and require coordinated long-term solutions. Across much of our region, many communities rely on ground water sources that are under increasing pressure. In some areas aquifers are declining, in others water quality issues such as salinity, nitrates and regulatory burdens uh are increasing treatment costs and creating uncertainty about long-term reliability. In addition, South Dakota and the Northern Great Plains are highly prone to drought, including periods of severe drought which further stress both ground water and existing surface water supplies. Dakota Mainstam takes its name from the Missouri River Mainstam Dams uh system of dams. Four of the six uh Mainstam Dams are in South Dakota. They include Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, Gavins Point Dams. These dams and their corresponding reservoirs represent a reliable and well-managed water supply that has long supported the region. The question before us is how to responsibly evaluate the use of that resource and help meet future needs. Dakota Means STEM uh recently completed an appraisal level study that examined regional water demand and potential supply options. Uh that work identified the Missouri River as the most reliable long-term source and confirmed that a regional multi-state Approach warrants further evaluation, consistent with uh planning federal planning standards. The next step is a detailed feasibility study, uh conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, consistent uh with its established planning framework and requirements. Authorization of this feasibility study is essential, specifically we are requesting authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in and provide technical and financial assistance for a feasibility study only. The authorization would not uh would allow the bureau and it to apply its technical expertise, and planning standards to fully evaluate this project, including engineering, environmental considerations, and economic feasibility. It is important to note that this request is limited to feasibility study authorization only and does not seek or imply authorization for construction. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the project is feasible, how it could be structured, and whether it should be be recommended for any further federal action. Dakota Mainstem is committed to being a reasonable and responsible partner in that process. We are leveraging state support and local member contributions to uh position ourself to meet uh the non-federal cost share requirements. We are also maintaining coordination with other regional efforts to uh to ensure thoughtful and informed approach uh as this work progresses. So as I wrap up, um, I would also like to recognize the importance of n- our Native American tribal engagement uh in this uh effort. Dakota Main Stem has conducted outreach uh to the tribal governments across the region, and is proud to uh include one tribal nation in our current membership, that being the Santisu tribe uh in Nebraska. We are committed to continuing that outreach and ensuring uh uh tribal perspectives and interests are appropriately considered. as this work move forward. Water infrastructure requires long planning horizons. Projects of this scale take years, often decades, uh to study, design and construct. That's exactly why it's important to begin uh this work now, and to do so in a manner that aligns with the Bureau of Reclamation's requirements from the outset. Reliable water supplies are foundational, and to rural communities they support homes, health care, agriculture, local economies, they allow communities to grow, uh, attract investment and remain viable for future generations. We respectfully ask for your support in authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study for the Dakota Main Sim uh regional water system. And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I now recognize Representative Strickland to introduce Chairman Chok.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm honored to introduce Chairman Ken Chok of the Nisqually Indian Tribe. who's here today to testify on behalf of hr seven five one five thank you chairman choke for travelling to washington d c to speak to the need for this legislation which will transfer ownership of the clear creek clear creek hatchery to the nisqually indian tribe through your leadership chairman choke you have led the tribe's efforts to preserve tribal fishing rights sustain fisheries and restore habitats we're grateful for your leadership and partnership and i look forward to hearing your testimony i yield back madam chair

Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Chok for five minutes.

Thank you everyone. Chair Heckman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today before you today and uh my name is Ken Chok. I serve as Chairman for the Nisqually Indian Tribe. I'm here in strong support of HR seventy five fifteen, named in the Nisqually Clear Creek Hatchery Land Transfer Act of twenty twenty six. I would like to thank Congresswoman Strickland for bringing this forward, and also Senators Patty Murray and Murray Cantwell for advancing this bill. I come before you not only as a tribal leader, but as someone who has stood in the waters of Clear Creek. Counting fry, helping s- helping steward the future of our salmon runs for the Nisqually peoples. Salmon are not just a resource, they're essential. They are central to our culture, our identity, and our way of life. When salmon thrive, our community thrives. You know, that's It's just uh overwhelming to be here before you today to talk about this bill. And HR seventy five fifteen addresses a simple but long-standing problem, the federal government presently holds the title of the clear creek hatchery facilities, but it does not fund staff or maintain them. Then the Squally tribe has done all that work at our own expense for many, for more than twenty years. We are, in effect, maintaining federal property without, without federal support and because we do not hold the title. We're a block from applying for federal funds that could help us sustain and improve this, this facility. that situation is not just inefficient, it's unfair and uns- unsustainable. The Clear Creek Hatchery is essential for the Nisqually tribe and the region. It produces, as stated, four million of the Chinook and one million of the Coho salmon smolts each year and is recognized as one of the most successful Chinook hatcheries in the Puget Sound. Without it, we could not meet our conservation goals, uh, or uphold our treaty protected fishing rights. And it benefits and extends beyond our tribe. Every year, we share thousands of pounds of salmon with surrounding community, including military families at JBLM. This is a part of who we are. We share the river's abundance with our neighbors, but with But the half, hatchery infrastructure is aging. We have deferred critical repairs because of our resources are, because our resources are limited, each year the gap grows between the facility needs and what we can afford. And the longer this continues, the greater the risk there is, there is to this hatchery. To the salmon and to the treaty rights we are working to uphold. H R seventy five fifteen offers straightforward solution. It directs Department of Interior to transfer ownership of the hatchery infrastructure to the Nisqually tribe at no cost. It does not require a new federal spending. It simply aligns legal ownership with operational reality. With ownership, we can finally access federal grant programs, develop long-term capital plans, and in invest confidently in the facility's future. This will strengthen the salmon recovery efforts and ensure the hatchery continues to serve both the tribe and a broader community. This legislation is about more than property, it's about fulfilling federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities. Under the treaty of the Medicine Creek signed in eighteen fifty-four the Nisqually people were guaranteed the right to fish, at our usual and accustomed places. Courts have have made it clear that this is a right, must be meaningful, not theoretical. That means that there must actually be fish to harvest. The clear kikachi is a key part in making that promise meaningful, allowing it to deteriorate over the technical ownership issue One that costs the federal governments nothing to fix and determines that the treaty commitment. The Nisqually tribe has done everything right. We have built a successful salmon recovery program. We have operated and maintained this hatchery for decades. We have invested our own resources and have shared our harvest with others. We are not asking for special treatment, we are asking for a practical Common sense solution. On behalf of the Squalian Indian Tribe, I respectfully urge the subcommittee to advance HR seventy five fifteen without delay. The salmon will not wait, and our people have waited long enough. Again, I thank you for this opportunity, and would like to share the simple fact that Strickland has visited our hatchery and has has seen it. So,

OK.

I encourage anybody else that has the opportunity to come down and check out the operations that I have fulfilled for over five years down there. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mister Choek. We appreciate the invitation. I now recognize representative Bentz to introduce Miss Nielsen.

Uh, thank you, Chair Hergeman. It's uh my privilege to introduce Elizabeth Nielsen, the Executive Director of the Klymouth Water Users Association. Elizabeth lives in far northern California, just across the California-Oregon border, near Klymouth Falls, Oregon. She has traveled some twenty-five hundred miles to be here today to test is Board of H. R. Make sure I have the right number here. Eight two five nine. She understands firsthand how dependent her family is on water, and she appreciates the interaction between the ranching tribal and fishing communities in the Klamath Basin. She believes that H.R. two eight two five nine will allow and promote both better protection of fish and because of improved communication between agencies and water users reduce chances of litigation. Welcome, Elizabeth, to the committee. I yield back.

Thank you. And I now recognize Miss Nielsen for five minutes.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. As Congressman Congressman Bent said, my name is Elizabeth Nielsen and I serve as the Executive Director of the Klamath Water Users Association. of H R eight two five nine, the federal water projects consultation improvement act of twenty twenty six. And I want to explain in plain terms why this legislation matters so much to our members and to farm and ranch families across the Western United States. Thank you Congressman Bentz for your authorship and introduction of this legislation. It is very important to water users throughout the Western United States, as evidenced by the numerous organizations that support the bill. I would also like to recognize and thank one of uh, Klamath Water Users member districts, Klamath Irrigation District, for being able to attend this hearing today. Klamath Water Users Association is a non-profit formed in nineteen fifty-three. Our members are irrigation districts that contract with the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath project. They deliver water from the Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake to approximately a hundred and seventy-five thousand acres of highly productive ag agricultural lands in southern Oregon and northern California. Our member districts also operate infrastructure that supplies water to Tule Lake and lower Klamath National Wildlife refuges which are critical to waterfowl and the Pacific flyway. When federal actions may affect endangered species under the Endangered Species Act agencies must complete a section seven consultation. During this process, wildlife agencies determine whether an action could harm listed and if so, what changes are required. These decisions can have significant real-world consequences. When consultations result in reduced water deliveries, the impacts are immediate and far-reaching. Lost crops, increased costs, harm to rural communities, and oftentimes harm to wildlife and fisheries, including threatened and endangered ones. Despite these stakes, there is a critical gap in ESA consultation. Federal water contractors, the entities that hold contracts with the federal government to receive and deliver this water, have no guaranteed role in the consultation process. Participation is left to agency discretion, and in our experience, the process has often been inconsistent, unpredictable, and lacking transparency. This is especially concerning because water contractors have substantial financial and operational responsibilities. but also have substantial water management knowledge to bring to the table. Most are public agencies that help repay the cost of constructing federal water projects and must continue to cover operation and maintenance costs, regardless of whether water is delivered or not. Many also operate federally owned infrastructure and maintain their own delivery and drainage systems at the local level. Because of this structure, ESA consultations can directly affect water supply infrastructure operations, and sometimes the entire ecosystem of an impacted area. In many circumstances, these water contractors can also bring essential on the ground knowledge about water management infrastructure day-to-day activities of the land served in local conditions information that can improve both the accuracy and durability of agency decisions these entities are very astute as to how to manage water, not only for their operations but to the benefit of wildlife and fisheries. They have unique experience about how to support spee species, and many times can provide direct benefits, including habitat improvements. They too want to see these endangered species survive and thrive, and many times have ideas on how to make that a reality. When they are brought to the table early, we believe it can lead to better results from the process. H R eight two five nine addresses this ESA consultation gap. by giving federal water contractors a defined role in the consultation process. It ensures they can communicate directly with decision makers, share technical expertise, and engage in meaningful dialogue before decisions are finalized. There is clear precedence for this approach. In two thousand and sixteen, Congress provided similar consultation opportunities for contractors in California's Central Valley Project and State Water Project. That authority is set to expire, and this bill builds on that experience to create a broader, more consistent, and permanent framework. I want to be very clear, this bill does not weaken the Endangered Species Act. It does not change the legal standards agencies must meet, and it does not give contractors veto authority. It simply ensures that those directly affected and those with critical expertise are meaningfully included in the process and promote collaboration that can help species in that process. This is a practical common sense improvement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome any questions the subcommittee may have.

Thank you very much, and I wanna thank each of the witnesses for your testimony and being so well prepare prepared to provide us with the information that we need to make good decisions. I am now going to recognize members for five minutes of questioning, and I'm going to begin with myself. Mister Larschen, I'm going to start with you. In your testimony, you outlined the need to expand the Lewis and Clark regional water system's capacity over the coming decades to keep pace with both economic development and population growth in the region. How would the feasibility study authorized by Mister Johnson's legislation help to ensure that the system is adequately prepared to meet future water demand?

Madam Chair, thank you for the question. As you heard in the testimony, Lewis and Clark is an existing system and it took twenty-eight years to get to where we are. Uh, this feasibility study is so critical so that we know how we can expand what we already have. So we know we need more water, what we don't know is how it would happen. The engineers need to take a look at this, figure out the best way forward. And so this feasibility study is is so important to ensure uh that we have the technical expertise in how to do this in the most efficient and effective way possible. And so we thank you for the question and the consideration.

In my prior life I was a water attorney. And I used to tell my clients, my municipalities, that they needed to be planning on a fifty to one hundred year time horizon. And I continue to believe that it's critically important that we do that. So, I'm an advocate for these kinds of studies, and I'm an advocate for uh making sure that we are meeting the long-term water demand of our citizens in this country. I think some states are better than others, but I appreciate the fact that you are being very proactive with this. Mister Feifeli, I'm gonna turn to you next, and would you please elaborate on the water supply challenges currently facing South Dakota and the surrounding regions?

Certainly, and and thank you for that question. Uh, the reliable uh reliable water is actually just it's foundational to uh to the infrastructure. Without it, our communities can't plan, uh they can't plan for growth, they can't support their businesses or sustain long-term development. Um, we have lots of challenges uh in in uh uh lots of different uh growing water challenges including drought, uh limited uh ground water supplies, uh water quality uh issues, aging infrastructure, increasing demand, all of these things. So um you know the you heard from the the Western Dakota folks uh you know a week or so ago um you know every every region in South Dakota has has issues and different issues and we're all trying to address them. And uh the feasibility studies are the way to do that.