30 



is about an $8 million problem to correct, and it could take about 

 nine months before the gate is back in operation. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you mean that one gate is an $8 million prob- 

 lem? 



Mr. Patterson. Yes, to repair this gate and construct bulkheads 

 that we can use and have them available on a permanent basis we 

 estimate will be around $8 million. 



Mr, DOOLITTLE. And if it turns out that the other gates are defec- 

 tive, then it will be much more than that I guess? 



Mr. Patterson. The $8 million includes some costs to do minor, 

 enhancement on the other gates, but if they had to be replaced, 

 yes, it would be higher. We have talked to the Corps of Engineers 

 about whether we can operate unrestricted with the remaining 

 gates, and they have said that we can. So we will be able to oper- 

 ate the reservoir for flood control this winter. This failure released 

 about 40,000 CFS downstream. The channel capacity design is 

 about 115,000. We had 50,000 in the river earlier this year during 

 our flood operation, to give some perspective. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. And normal flow at this time of year is about 

 what? 1,500? 



Mr. Patterson. Normal flow this time of year would be any- 

 where from 2,000 up to maybe 4,000. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK Well, my time is about up. I appreciate the 

 indulgence of the members and appreciate your responses. Let us 

 get Mr. Beard to come back up and begin with the first panel. 



STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU 

 OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: AC- 

 COMPANIED BY ROGER PATTERSON 



Mr. Beard. Well, if I could, as somebody who is leaving, make 

 a parenthetical remark about the last discussion, and that is that 

 it points out the importance of dam safety funding. That has been 

 a priority and something that I felt very strongly about. We needed 

 to make sure that we were funding this program because, in es- 

 sence, it is a zero defect industry. You make one mistake — ^you 

 don't even get one mistake to make. 



Our FY '96 budget was reduced this year on the House side by 

 about nine percent in our dam safety line item. I have been work- 

 ing with the Senate to make sure that we try to restore those funds 

 which I really feel very strongly that we should do. 



I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

 present the Administration's views on H.R. 1906, the Central Val- 

 ley Project Reform Act. The Administration believes passage of this 

 bill is premature at this time. Less than three years ago, the Con- 

 gress passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. It is a 

 good law. 



It balances the needs of CVP customers including agricultural in- 

 terests, power users, conservationists, urban areas, as well as rec- 

 ognizing the trust responsibility we have to Native Americans. The 

 law acknowledges, and it is important to note, that all of these 

 groups have a legitimate interest in the Central Valley Project. 

 They are all benefit from the project. 



We believe that implementation of the CVPIA continues to make 

 significant progress. We recognize, however, that not all water 



