trict boundaries, how would Oregon state law deal with that? In other words, how would that water be used under current Oregon state law? Mr. MYRUM. The issue of use of Federal water is an issue of whether or not the contract with the Bureau of Reclamation allows delivery to those specific lands. Traditionally, the Bureau of Reclamation wanted a requirement that any lands which got Federal water were irrigable and were also able to carry the burden of paying off the debt to the Federal Government. Under Oregon state law then, they could issue a water right for the use of Federal water, this being a supplemental water right, but whether or not the district had a contract to deliver water to that land is between the district and the Bureau of Reclamation. So from the state perspective, they would require that there be a supplemental water right. Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Keys, do you have any idea how much the Bureau of Reclamation is spending for say the salmon recovery efforts? Do you have any idea? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cremeans, if you look at the Federal Government as a whole, we are spending somewhere around a billion dollars a year. Mr. CREMEANS. Twice the economy of Mr. KEYS. If you make that comparison, that is true. Mr. CREMEANS. Is any of that reimbursable? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cremeans, there is a portion of it that is, but it is very small. Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Johnson, in your testimony, you mentioned something about water conservation and increased efficiency efforts. Can you tell us any more about how the area irrigators are trying to make efficiency more of an individual or a group effort? Could you comment on that? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, of course, you realize some of these districts and some of these irrigation lands have been getting wet with this water for 90 years, and all that was originally flood irrigated application, and gravity played a big role. As technology and efficiency allowed, people have brought more efficiency to bear and that has done a number of things, including make some otherwise unirrigable land irrigable. You can pump it up hill now and get it where it will do some good. So with that in mind, original project boundaries in my district was over 16,000 acres in the original enabling legislation. But we are only irrigating about 9000 acres, somewhere between nine and 11. The actual figure is somewhat in dispute at this point. So to answer your question, the efficiencies gained have been basically efficiencies borne by the landowner desiring to make better use of lands, and the net effect is better use of the resource through sprinklers, through drip irrigation, through improved economy of both application and distribution. Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Reuter, is that correct? Reuter, I am sorry. What other parties were actually involved in the original negotiations that actually led to the passage of the Umatilla Basin Project Act? Who were the principals, let me ask you that. Mr REUTER. The irrigation districts and the tribes were the two main principals. The business people in town were also very active 20 was so successful in getting passed, because it had the whole com- Ms. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Keys, you mentioned in your testimony that Section 8 of the 1902 Act provides for the development and operation of the reclamation projects and will be undertaken in compliance with state water law. Have you in every case complied with state water law? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, in every case that I am familiar with in this region, we have done so. Ms. CHENOWETH. Under Oregon state water law, is use of water in an instream flow for the purpose of flow augmentation, is that a beneficial use under Oregon law? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, in my understanding, it is. Ms. CHENOWETH. Could you get a written opinion for me on that? Ms. CHENOWETH. Let me restate exactly what I want. I would You also indicated in your testimony Reclamation has acquired appropriative state water rights for operation of its projects. How did you acquire those rights? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, we applied to the state Water Resources Department, the state engineer, for those water rights, we paid the necessarily filing fees and have obtained them through the normal process that any other individual would obtain a water right. Ms. CHENOWETH. How much was the total cost, do you remember? And when did you acquire those rights? Mr. KEYS. This is just for the Umatilla Basin Project? Ms. CHENOWETH. Yes. Mr. KEYS. We applied for that water right in 1991 and if I am not mistaken, the price for that was somewhere around $8000. Ms. CHENOWETH. Eight thousand dollars. What kind of volume of water are we dealing with here in the Umatilla Project? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I would like to submit those figures for the record, because you are asking an old man with a very poor memory some very detailed questions. We did apply for the water right, we did pay for it and I can give you the exact amount that we paid for that. The purpose of the water right was the exchange of Columbia River water-in other words, we applied for a Columbia River water right to exchange for Umatilla River water, and there were a number of water right filings_necessary to do that. The Columbia River water, the Umatilla River water, the water right that covered McKay Reservoir, the changes with the districts, there were a number of them involved and that is why it was so expensive. Ms. CHENOWETH. Eight thousand dollars? Mr. KEYS. That is to the best of my memory. I would certainly give you a figure to back that up. MS. CHENOWETH. What is the volume of water right out here in the Columbia River? I mean, do you pay for the water per cubic foot or acre foot of water? Mr. KEYS. The filing that we made was an exchange right and it covered about 39,000 acre feet. Ms. CHENOWETH. So it is not the acquisition of a water right for a beneficial use then? It is an exchange right, right? Mr. KEYS. Well, it has to be beneficial or we do not get a water right. Ms. CHENOWETH. No, no, no, I am talking about Oregon law which has beneficial uses in its law. Mr. KEYS. Yes, ma'am. Ms. CHENOWETH. OK. Now when you acquired these water rights, was it for a beneficial use, because you are using the whole river, or almost all of the river, and so $8000 just does not add up to me. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, what we had to do is pump Columbia River water out of the Columbia River to put into the irrigation districts in the Umatilla Basin. And it required a water right of us to do that. Then we had to do an exchange for that Columbia River water for McKay water and for natural flows of the irrigation districts that they were using out of the Umatilla River. And that is what that filing covered. Ms. CHENOWETH. I see, OK. What was the volume of water? Mr. KEYS. The volume on an average basis that we were taking out of the Columbia River was approximately 39,000 acre feet per year. Ms. CHENOWETH. Gosh, water is cheap here in Oregon. According to those figures, it is awful cheap. You talked about Reclamation's water rights includes storage rights. Now under Section 8, is that what empowered the Department of Reclamation to get storage rights? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, Section 8 says that when we build a project, we will apply for the necessary water right to cover that project and then we will operate the project within that water right that the state gives us. We did that when we constructed McKay Reservoir for the supplemental water supply in the Umatilla Basin. Ms. CHENOWETH. OK. So Section 8 requires that you get water rights as opposed to storage rights? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, Section 8 covers water rights. A storage right is a kind of water right that you apply for when you are dealing with storage. Ms. CHENOWETH. Water rights is a property right, is it not, appurtenant to the use? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, water rights are a property right. Ms. CHENOWETH. OK. Storage rights are not a property right, are they, they are a contractual right, are they not? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, storage rights are water rights also, and therefore, they are property rights. Ms. CHENOWETH. Can you show me in Oregon law or Idaho law or Federal law where storage rights are water rights? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I do not have the right books with me, but we could certainly provide that for the panel. Ms. CHENOWETH. I have not found it, and I do not know of any lawyers who have found the answer to the question that I am asking, that storage rights are the same as water rights. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, the basis of Reclamation facilities is storage rights. Ms. CHENOWETH. That is right. Mr. KEYS. And we deal with them almost exclusively in meeting the contracts that are written for those project waters. And certainly, I would provide for you the basis of our use of storage rights. Ms. CHENOWETH. That is good, and I think we are coming pretty close, because as I said earlier, I believe storage rights are a contract right. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree that a storage right is simply a contract right because we have water rights that cover storage rights, storage rights for our projects all over the west. Ms. CHENOWETH. You and I may never agree, but I think if we could find the law that says that storage rights and water rights are the same, then we may come to an agreement. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I will certainly give it a good try. Ms. CHENOWETH. That is good, I think that is a great challenge for you, Mr. Keys, we have a good history, do we not? [Laughter.] MS. CHENOWETH. You are a gentleman, you are not answering in public. You do state that Reclamation must also comply with general statutes like NEPA. Mr. Myrum indicated that you are requiring a NEPA study per district, I think it is—yeah, he said that these contracts have called for the districts to provide a portion of their water for instream use and have required NEPA compliance for districts, and this is on waterspreading. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, that is correct. Ms. CHENOWETH. Waterspreading, as enacted by the Bureau of Reclamation, is really a major Federal action, is it not? I mean it is a change in policy, is it not? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I am not sure what you mean by that, but waterspreading has been around for a long time. Ms. CHENOWETH. Yes, but as that policy is now being carried out, as referred to in this body of testimony, it is a major change or a major Federal action, is it not? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, yes, it is a major Federal action. Ms. CHENOWETH. Well, under the National Environmental Policy Act, for every major Federal action, is the agency not required to do their own EIS, environmental impact statement, economic impact statement? So why are you having the districts pay to do it, because the Supreme Court has said time and time again that the Congress purpose that the agencies determine what their actions will be on the environment, and then the court has said on the economy. Has Bureau of Reclamation done an EIS? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I think if you look at different government agencies, you will find different policies on payment for environmental impact statements. One of the principles that we have dealt with for a number of years around Interior and Reclamation is that those people that benefit from an action help pay for those NEPA compliance actions. This is not the first case that we have been involved in where those people that are bringing actions are helping pay for environmental impact statements. Ms. CHENOWETH. I just have one final question, and that is, but does the law, the Congress when they set forth the National Environmental Policy Act state that for every major Federal decision, it is up to the agency to comply and perform the environmental and economic impact statements? I am talking about the law and United States Supreme Court decisions backing up that law, as opposed to policy. Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Chenoweth, I think if you look at the law, it says that the impact statements will be done. The interpretation from Interior is that those people benefiting would help pay. And I work for Interior. Ms. CHENOWETH. I would love to help you make your job easier and we would not have to deal with all those interpretations which run counter to the law. Believe it or not, I really would. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Keys, how long have you been the Regional Director here? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, since September 16, 1986. Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you have been here for quite awhile to oversee these issues and form an opinion as to how things are going? You testified that the Federal Government, through the various agencies involved, is spending about a billion dollars a year on salmon recovery efforts? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman; yes, sir, I think if you look at the individual years, it will range from half a billion to a billion dollars and that includes foregone power, it includes the investments from private organizations, from states, from all of the Federal agencies, from the ratepayers. All of those above, are probably in that range. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand now, that Bonneville alone has apparently, on a cumulative basis, contributed two billion, as Mr. Cooley has indicated. But this is a billion a year, you are saying, from the various sources. Mr. KEYS. Well it ranges somewhere between a half and a billion. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right, sure. Mr. Keys, do you know how many salmon have been recovered per year roughly as a result of that expenditure? Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the exact figure. I know that in the period that we have been working with them, it has gone up and down. I know that this year, there are no sockeye |