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.
