Mercury's surface in "enhanced color," a color scheme created to emphasize color differences. This is not what Mercury would look like to the human eye, but by applying mathematical analysis to images, color differences can be accentuated beyond those visible to a person.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial under construction.
The workers had to endure conditions that varied from blazing hot to bitterly cold and windy. Each day they climbed 700 stairs to the top of the mountain to punch-in on the time clock. Then 3/8 inch thick steel cables lowered them over the front of the 500-foot face of the mountain in a "bosun chair." Despite the dangers, no one was killed during the project.
Otters in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska.
The sea otter population of Glacier Bay has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. Ecologists consider sea otters a keystone species here. Otters consume vast quantities of clams, urchins, crabs, and other invertebrates and their presence creates ripples through the ecosystem. NPS photo.
Every day someone like you becomes a wildland wildfire fighter, a teacher, a trail-builder, a museum curator, or a park ranger. Discover your opportunities in national parks. Come to play. Come to learn. Come to serve. Develop your environmental leadership skills. Find a job. Be the next generation to preserve and protect these great places.
With more than 80% of Americans living in urban areas, urban parks are more important than ever. The father of American landscape architecture, Frederick Law Olmsted, said of urban parks:
It is one great purpose of the Park to supply to the hundreds of thousands of tired workers, who have no opportunity to spend their summers in the country, a specimen of God's handiwork that shall be to them, inexpensively, what a month or two in the White Mountains or the Adirondacks is, at great cost, to those in easier circumstances.
Statement of Lowell Pimley, Deputy Commissioner, Operations
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of the Interior
Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Water and Power
U.S. House of Representatives
Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act
March 05, 2013
Chairman McClintock and members of the Subcommittee, I am Lowell Pimley, Deputy Commissioner for Operations of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science who oversees the Central Utah Project Completion Act activities to present the Administration's views on HR 254, the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act. The proposed legislation is associated with development of hydropower on the Diamond Fork System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) provides for the completion of the construction of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). CUPCA also authorizes programs for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for deposit of appropriations and other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
Hydropower development on CUP facilities was authorized as part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA) under which the Central Utah Project is a participating project. The development of hydropower on the Diamond Fork System has been contemplated since the early days of the CUP. The 1984 Environmental Impact Statement on the Diamond Fork System described the construction of five hydropower plants with a combined capacity of 166 MW of power.
However, these hydropower plants were never constructed and the 1999 Environmental Impact Statement on the Diamond Fork System presented a plan which specifically excluded the development of hydropower, stating "there are no definite plans or designs, and it is not known if or by whom they may be developed." Although hydropower development was not included, construction of pipelines and tunnels for the Diamond Fork System were completed and put into operation in July 2004. Under full operation the Diamond Fork System will annually convey 101,900 acre-feet of CUP Water and 61,500 acre-feet for Strawberry Valley Project water users. In 2002 CUPCA was amended to authorize development of Federal project power on CUP facilities. With this new amendment plans for hydropower development at Diamond Fork were included in the 2004 Utah Lake System Environmental Impact Statement and the 2004 Supplement to the Definite Plan Report for the Bonneville Unit (DPR). These documents describe the construction of two hydropower plants on the existing Diamond Fork System for a total generating capacity of 50 MW.
Section 208 of CUPCA included provisions that power on CUP features would be developed and operated in accordance with CRSPA and CUP water diverted out of the Colorado River Basin for power purposes would be incidental to other project purposes.
There are two options for hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System: 1) Federal project development or 2) private development under a Lease of Power Privilege contract with the United States.
Under the first option the CUWCD would construct the Diamond Fork hydropower plants under contract with the United States and contribute an upfront local cost share of 35 percent of the construction costs. In addition to the hydropower plant construction costs, the costs of conveyance facilities upstream of Diamond Fork System that are allocated to power would have to be repaid. The DPR allocates costs of the CUP according to project purposes. The reimbursable costs allocated to power are $106 million based upon the costs of developed features upstream of the Diamond Fork System. It is anticipated that under this option, these allocated costs would be repaid through an arrangement among Interior, CUWCD, and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).
Under the second option, private hydropower could be developed. Although the DPR and 1999 EIS describe Federal hydropower development, they also provide the option for a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement with the United States. Under this arrangement Interior would implement a competitive process to select a lessee for private development of hydropower at Diamond Fork. The lease arrangement would require repayment of the $106 million of upstream costs plus annual payments to the United States for the use of the Federal facilities, amounting to at least a 3 mil rate paid by the lessee to the United States.
HR 254 does not preclude Federal development of hydropower, but it does increase the likelihood of private development. If enacted, this bill would indefinitely defer the $106 million in costs allocated to power development in the Diamond Fork System under section 211 of CUPCA, thus reducing the cost of hydropower development at this site. This bill would increase the likelihood that a private developer would pursue a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement because the private developer would not, under this legislation, be required to repay the $106 million of construction costs that were allocated to power as would be required under existing law.
We understand and appreciate the goal of this legislation of facilitating the development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System.
However, as stated in testimony during the 112th Congress on companion legislation, the Administration has serious concerns about losing our ability to recoup the Federal investment made in these facilities as set forth in this legislation. The Federal Government may benefit in the medium term from the annual payments for the use of Federal facilities that would be paid if a lessee entered into a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement for production of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System. Assuming only a summer water supply as under current deliveries, these payments are estimated at about $400,000 a year starting the year that the project is completed and continuing for the life of the project. However, because payment of $106 million of allocated power costs would be postponed indefinitely, it is unclear what the long-term fiscal implications of enactment of this legislation would be and how the United States Treasury would be made whole. This legislation would potentially permanently postpone anticipated receipts to the U.S. Treasury at the expense of the Federal taxpayer. While it is not clear at this time whether a nonfederal developer would propose a hydroelectric project at Diamond Fork under current law, if this were to occur, repayment of the allocated power costs would begin after the hydroelectric project is completed and average $5.3 million a year for 40 years.
Section 5 of HR 254 would prohibit the use of tax-exempt financing to develop any facility for the generation or transmission of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System. This provision was added to the bill to prevent any loss of revenue to the Federal Government as a result of the financing mechanism used for development of hydropower at this site.
This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions.