Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-769
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         FORT PECK RURAL COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ACT OF 1996
_______________________________________________________________________


 September 4, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1467]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the Act 
(S. 1467) to authorize the construction of the Fort Peck Rural 
County Water Supply System, to authorize assistance to the Fort 
Peck Rural County Water District, Inc., a nonprofit 
corporation, for the planning, design, and construction of the 
water supply system, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the Act as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply 
System Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this Act:
            (1) Construction.--The term ``construction'' means such 
        activities associated with the actual development or 
        construction of facilities as are initiated on execution of 
        contracts for construction.
            (2) District.--The term ``District'' means the Fort Peck 
        Rural County Water District, Inc., a nonprofit corporation in 
        Montana.
            (3) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
        means the study entitled ``Final Engineering Report and 
        Alternative Evaluation for the Fort Peck Rural County Water 
        District'', dated September 1994.
            (4) Planning.--The term ``planning'' means activities such 
        as data collection, evaluation, design, and other associated 
        preconstruction activities required prior to the execution of 
        contracts for construction.
            (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (6) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
        means the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System, to be 
        established and operated substantially in accordance with the 
        feasibility study.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Upon request of the District, the Secretary shall 
enter into a cooperative agreement with the District for the planning, 
design, and construction by the District of the water supply system. 
Title to this project shall remain in the name of the District.
    (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide for safe 
and adequate rural water supplies under the jurisdiction of the 
District in Valley County, northeastern Montana (as described in the 
feasibility study).
    (c) Amount of Federal Contribution.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), under the 
        cooperative agreement, the Secretary shall pay the Federal 
        share of--
                    (A) costs associated with the planning, design, and 
                construction of the water supply system (as identified 
                in the feasibility study); and
                    (B) such sums as are necessary to defray increases 
                in the budget.
            (2) Federal share.--The Federal share referred to in 
        paragraph (1) shall be 75 percent and shall not be 
        reimbursable.
            (3) Total.--The amount of Federal funds made available 
        under the cooperative agreement shall not exceed the amount of 
        funds authorized to be appropriated under section 4.
            (4) Limitations.--Not more than 5 percent of the amount of 
        Federal funds made available to the Secretary under section 4 
        may be used by the Secretary for activities associated with--
                    (A) compliance with the National Environmental 
                Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
                    (B) oversight of the planning, design, and 
                construction by the District of the water supply 
                system.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
$5,800,000. This authorization shall terminate after a period of 5 
complete fiscal years after the date of enactment of this Act unless 
the Congress has appropriated funds for the construction purposes of 
this Act. This authorization shall be extended 1 additional year if the 
Secretary has requested such appropriation. The funds authorized to be 
appropriated may be increased or decreased by such amounts as are 
justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in development costs 
incurred after October 1, 1994, as indicated by engineering cost 
indices applicable to the type of construction project authorized under 
this Act. All costs which exceed the amounts authorized by this Act, 
including costs associated with the ongoing energy needs, operation, 
and maintenance of this project shall remain the responsibility of the 
District.

SEC. 5. CACHUMA PROJECT, BRADBURY DAM, CALIFORNIA.

    The prohibition against obligating funds for construction until 60 
days from the date that the Secretary of the Interior transmits a 
report to the Congress in accordance with section 5 of the Reclamation 
Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is waived for the Cachuma 
Project, Bradbury Dam, California.

                          purpose of the bill

    The purposes of S. 1467 are to authorize the construction 
of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System; to authorize 
assistance to the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, Inc., 
a nonprofit corporation, for the planning, design, and 
construction of the water supply system; and to allow safety-
of-dam work to proceed expeditiously at the Cachuma Project, 
Bradbury Dam, California.

                  background and need for legislation

    S. 1467 would authorize appropriations of $5.8 million for 
the construction of a rural water supply distribution facility 
for Fort Peck Rural County Water District. The 24,150 acre 
water district is located in southern Valley County near the 
town of Fort Peck in north central Montana. The southern 
portion of the district is bordered by the Fort Peck Reservoir, 
constructed as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.
    Currently, 95 percent of the residents of Valley County 
must haul their drinking water from Fort Peck or Fort Peck Lake 
to meet domestic needs. The process of hauling water is 
difficult and expensive, particularly during the cold winter 
months. In addition, this area receives more than 280,000 
visits each year by recreational users at Fort Peck Reservoir, 
and a reliable supply of good quality drinking water is needed 
to serve these people.
    The Bureau of Reclamation and HKM Associates completed a 
final engineering report and alternative evaluation for the 
Fort Peck Rural County Water District in September 1994. The 
report examined 15 alternatives and recommended one that would 
construct a new intake in the reservoir and water treatment 
facility near Duck Creek. The reservoir is considered to be the 
best source of water for a municipal system because the water 
is of good quality and requires only conventional treatment. 
The cost of the system was estimated to be $5,798,000. It was 
also estimated that the cost of the system would increase 15 
percent if it were expanded to include fire protection. The 
report concluded that capital funding assistance would be 
required at a minimum of 75 percent.

                            committee action

    S. 1467 was introduced on December 11, 1995, by Senator 
Conrad Burns (R-MT), and passed the Senate on May 7, 1996. The 
bill was received in the House of Representatives and referred 
to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources. A companion bill, 
H.R. 2819, was introduced by Congressman Pat Williams (D-MT) on 
December 20, 1995, and was the subject of a legislative hearing 
by the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources on April 18, 
1995.
    On July 11, 1996, the Subcommittee met to mark up S. 1467. 
An en bloc amendment was offered by Congressman John T. 
Doolittle (R-CA) to: 1) change the Federal cost-share from 80 
to 75 percent; 2) add a provision that stipulates that, if the 
project has not received construction appropriations by the 
Congress after five complete fiscal years after enactment, the 
project authorization shall be terminated, except that the 
authorization shall be extended by one additional fiscal year 
if the Secretary of the Interior has requested such 
appropriation; and 3) clarify that all costs for operation and 
maintenance, as well as ongoing energy needs, shall remain the 
responsibility of the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, 
and that title to these facilities shall remain in the name of 
the District. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill 
was then ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee. On 
August 1, 1996, the Full Resources Committee met to consider S. 
1467. Congressman Doolittle offered an amendment to waive, for 
the Cachuma Project, Bradbury Dam, California, the prohibition 
against obligating funds for construction until 60 days from 
the date that the Secretary of the Interior transmits a report 
to the Congress in accordance with section 5 of the Reclamation 
Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509). The amendment was 
adopted by unanimous consent. The bill as amended was then 
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 
voice vote.

                      section-by-section analysis

Section 1. Short title

    The short title of the Act is the ``Fort Peck Rural County 
Water Supply System Act of 1996.''

Section 2. Definitions

    This section provides definitions of the terms 
construction, ``District,'' ``planning,'' and ``Secretary.'' It 
also defines ``feasibility study'' to be the study entitled 
``Final Engineering Report and Alternative Evaluation for the 
Fort Peck Rural County Water District'' dated September 1994. 
It defines ``water supply system'' as the Fort Peck Rural 
County Water Supply System, to be established and operated 
substantially in accordance with the feasibility study.

Section 3. Federal assistance for water supply system

    This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
enter into a cooperative agreement with the Fort Peck Rural 
County Water District for the planning, design, and 
construction by the District of a rural water supply system in 
Valley County, Montana. Title to this project is to remain in 
the name of the District.
    This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to pay 
75 percent of the planning, design, and construction costs of 
the water supply system identified in the feasibility study. 
The Secretary is required to pay 75 percent of the sums 
necessary to defray increases in the budget. The Federal share 
is not reimbursable. This section also requires that the 
Federal funds made available under the cooperative agreement 
not exceed the amount authorized in section 4.
    Finally, this section limits the funds used by the 
Secretary for compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 and for oversight of the water supply system 
planning, design and construction by the Fort Peck Rural Water 
County District to five percent of the amount authorized to be 
appropriated under section 4.

Section 4. Authorization of appropriations

    This section authorizes an appropriation of $5,800,000. The 
authorization terminates after a period of five complete fiscal 
years after enactment of the Act unless Congress has 
appropriated funds for the construction purposes of the Act. 
The authorization will be extended one additional year if the 
Secretary of the Interior has requested an appropriation for 
construction purposes. The authorization level may be changed 
to accommodate ordinary fluctuations in development costs 
incurred after October 1, 1994.
    This section further states that all costs which exceed the 
amount authorized by the Act, including those associated with 
ongoing energy needs, operation, and maintenance of the 
project, shall remain the responsibility of the Fort Peck Rural 
County Water District.

Section 5. Cachuma project, Bradbury Dam, California

    This section waives the prohibition against obligating 
funds for construction until sixty days from the date that the 
Secretary of the Interior transmits a report to the Congress in 
accordance with section 5 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act 
of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) for the Cachuma Project, Bradbury Dam, 
California.

            committee oversight findings and recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                     inflationary impact statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of S. 1467 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.

                        cost of the legislation

    Clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
S. 1467. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     compliance with house rule xi

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, S. 1467 
does not contain any new credit authority, or an increase or 
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. Additional 
discretionary spending authority is provided, as described in 
the Congressional Budget Office report, below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of S. 1467.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for S. 1467 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 7, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1467, the Fort Peck 
Rural County Water Supply System Act of 1995.
    Enacting S. 1467 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 1467.
    2. Bill title: Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System 
Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Resources on August 1, 1996.
    4. Bill purpose: S. 1467 would authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Fort Peck 
Rural County Water District to construct the Fort Peck Rural 
County Water Supply System. The legislation also would allow 
the Secretary to begin obligating funds for constructing the 
Cachuma Project at Bradbury Dam in California by waiving the 
60-day period for Congressional review of the report filed by 
the Secretary pursuant to section 5 of the Reclamation Safety 
of Dams Act of 1978.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts, S. 1467 would result 
in discretionary spending totaling $6.6 million over fiscal 
years 1997 through 1999, as shown in the table below.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending subject to appropriation:                                                                              
    Estimated authorization level.........................        7        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................        1        5        1        0        0        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 
300.
    6. Basis of estimate: This estimate reflects the basic 
authorization of $5.8 million for the Fort Peck Rural County 
Water Supply System, increased, as specified in S. 1467, by the 
estimated impact of inflation during the time between October 
1, 1994, and the construction period. Outlays are estimated 
based on historical spending rates for similar water projects. 
Funding for the Fort Peck project would constitute new 
spending--to date, no amounts have been appropriated for this 
project.
    The provision related to the Cachuma Project at Bradbury 
Dam in California would have no budgetary impact. Eliminating 
the 60-day period for Congressional review would allow 
construction on the project to proceed according to schedule.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
governments: S. 1467 contains no intergovernmental mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-4) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The bill would limit the federal share of this project to 
75 percent. The Fort Peck Rural County Water District would 
have to provide matching funds of about $2 million in order to 
receive the full amount of federal assistance authorized. 
Participation in this project would be voluntary on the part of 
the district.
    9. Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would 
impose no new federal private-sector mandates as defined in 
Public Law 104-4.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: On March 27, 1996, CBO prepared 
an estimate for S. 1467, as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources on March 15, 1996. The two 
versions of the legislation are similar and their estimated 
costs are identical.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Gary 
Brown; impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller; and impact on the Private Sector: Patrice Gordon.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    S. 1467 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, S. 1467 would make no changes in existing law.