Statement of William Rinne

Deputy Commissioner

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior

Before the

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

U.S. House of Representatives

June 24, 2003

My name is Bill Rinne, and I am Deputy Commissioner for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.  I am pleased to provide the Administration’s views on H.R. 1794, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct a parallel water supply line connecting the pumping plant at the base of Folsom Dam in California to the Hinkle Wye serving the City of Roseville, California, and the San Juan Water District, California.                      

This bill would also authorize the Secretary to rehabilitate the approximately three-quarter mile long, 84-inch diameter, above ground water supply line connecting the Folsom Dam pumping facility to the Hinkle Wye, where the delivery system splits into separate pipelines to serve the San Juan Water District (District) and the City of Roseville (City).  While the Administration understands the communities’ interest in these projects, we do not believe it is the Federal government’s role to fund a secondary pipeline and therefore cannot support H.R. 1794. 

The United States owns, and Reclamation operates, the 84-inch steel North Fork Pipeline, which is the sole conveyance of Folsom Reservoir water to both the District and the City.   It is our understanding that the United States is responsible for maintaining the existing pipeline.  However, the Bureau of Reclamation can only meet this responsibility with permission from the City and County to interrupt pipeline flow long enough to perform maintenance. 

The City and District have grown substantially since the pipeline and Folsom Dam were constructed 50 years ago.  In working with the City and the District over the past few years, they informed us that the community growth leaves them without an adequate year-round backup resource to sustain a water  pipeline interruption for more than approximately 24 hours.  This constraint directly interferes with the Bureau’s ability to perform maintenance on the pipeline. 

We agree that the lack of reserve capacity interferes with maintenance and creates a continuity of supply issue that needs to be addressed.  However, it is our understanding that, while the responsibility for pipeline maintenance belongs to the Bureau of Reclamation, responsibility for providing reserve capacity to allow for maintenance belongs to the City and District.

Following a preliminary inspection in 2001, Reclamation met with the District and City to discuss a parallel pipeline as a possible solution to providing water supply during rehabilitation work.  At that time, officials from the District and the City indicated they intended to jointly fund and installation of the parallel pipeline.  Reclamation supported that approach and indicated it would cooperate in the process, a position we continue to support.

In summary, the Administration understands that a solution to this issue must be developed, but if the District and the City determine that they need a parallel pipeline or some other method of reserve capacity, they should be responsible for its construction.  Reclamation understands that it is responsible for reasonable maintenance of the existing pipeline and stands behind that commitment.  We look forward to continuing cooperation with City, District and legislative sponsors in developing alternatives that may prove a more efficient means of meeting the community’s water needs.

That concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be pleased to answer any questions.