Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-580

======================================================================



 
 LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

 July 16, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2990]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2990) to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water 
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize 
additional projects under that Act, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Lower Rio Grande Valley Water 
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECTS UNDER THE LOWER RIO GRANDE 
                    VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT 
                    ACT OF 2000.

  Section 4(a) of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources 
Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 114 Stat. 
3067) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) In the United Irrigation District of Hidalgo County, 
        Texas, a pipeline and pumping system as identified in the 
        Sigler, Winston, Greenwood, Associates, Incorporated, study 
        dated January 2001.
          ``(6) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        2, proposed improvements to Canal C, as identified in the 
        February 8, 2001, engineering report by Martin, Brown, and 
        Perez.
          ``(7) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        2, a proposed Canal C and Canal 13 Inner Connect, as identified 
        in the February 12, 2001, engineering report by Martin, Brown, 
        and Perez.
          ``(8) In Delta Lake Irrigation District of Hidalgo and 
        Willacy Counties, Texas, proposed water conservation projects, 
        as identified by the AW Blair Engineering report of February 
        13, 2001.
          ``(9) In the Hidalgo and Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 9, a proposed project to salvage spill water using 
        automatic control of canal gates as identified in the AW Blair 
        Engineering report dated February 14, 2001.
          ``(10) In the Brownsville Irrigation District of Cameron 
        County, Texas, a proposed main canal replacement as outlined in 
        the Holdar-Garcia & Associates engineering report dated 
        February 14, 2001.
          ``(11) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        16, a proposed off-district pump station project as identified 
        by the Melden & Hunt, Incorporated, engineering report dated 
        February 14, 2001.
          ``(12) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        1, a proposed canal replacement of the North Branch East Main, 
        as outlined in the Melden & Hunt, Incorporated, engineering 
        analysis dated February, 2001.
          ``(13) In the Donna (Texas) Irrigation District, a proposed 
        improvement project as identified by the Melden & Hunt, 
        Incorporated, engineering analysis dated February 13, 2001.
          ``(14) In the Hudspeth County, Texas, Conservation and 
        Reclamation District No. 1, the Alamo Arroyo Pumping Plant 
        water quality project as identified by the engineering report 
        and drawings by Gebhard-Sarma and Associates dated July 1996 
        and the construction of a 1,000 acre-foot off-channel 
        regulating reservoir for the capture and conservation of 
        irrigation water, as identified in the engineering report by AW 
        Blair Engineering dated June 2002.
          ``(15) In the El Paso County, Texas, Water Improvement 
        District No. 1, the Riverside Canal Improvement Project Phase I 
        Reach A, a canal lining and water conservation project as 
        identified by the engineering report by AW Blair Engineering 
        dated June 2002.
          ``(16) In the Maverick County, Texas, Water Improvement and 
        Control District No. 1, the concrete lining project of 12 miles 
        of the Maverick Main Canal, identified in the engineering 
        report by AW Blair Engineering dated June 2002.
          ``(17) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        6, rehabilitation of 10.2 miles of concrete lining in the main 
        canal between Lift Stations Nos. 2 and 3 as identified in the 
        engineering report by AW Blair Engineering dated June 2002.
          ``(18) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        2, Wisconsin Canal Improvements as identified in the Sigler, 
        Winston, Greenwood & Associates, Incorporated, engineering 
        report dated February 2001.
          ``(19) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation District No. 
        2, Lateral `A' Canal Improvements as identified in the Sigler, 
        Winston, Greenwood & Associates, Incorporated, engineering 
        report dated July 25, 2001.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES 
                    CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000.

  The Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and 
Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 114 Stat. 3065 et seq.) is 
further amended as follows:
          (1) Section 3(a) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
        ``The Secretary'' and all that follows through ``in 
        cooperation'' and inserting ``The Secretary, acting through the 
        Bureau of Reclamation, shall undertake a program under 
        cooperative agreements''.
          (2) Section 3(b) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(b) Project Review.--Project proposals shall be reviewed and 
evaluated under the guidelines set forth in the document published by 
the Bureau of Reclamation entitled `Guidelines for Preparing and 
Reviewing Proposals for Water Conservation and Improvement Projects 
Under P.L. 106-576', dated June 2001.''.
          (3) Section 3(d) is amended by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``, including operation, maintenance, 
        repair, and replacement''.
          (4) Section 3(e) is amended by striking ``the criteria 
        established pursuant to this section'' and inserting ``the 
        guidelines referred to in subsection (b)''.
          (5) Subsection (f) of section 3 is amended by striking ``to 
        prepare'' and all that follows through the end of the 
        subsection and inserting ``to have the Secretary prepare the 
        reports required under this section. The Federal share of the 
        cost of such preparation by the Secretary shall not exceed 50 
        percent of the total cost of such preparation.''.
          (6) Section 3(g) is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$8,000,000''.
          (7) Section 4(b) is amended--
                  (A) in the first sentence by striking ``costs of any 
                construction'' and inserting ``total project cost of 
                any project''; and
                  (B) in the last sentence by inserting ``the actual'' 
                before ``funds''.
          (8) Section 4(c) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$47,000,000 (2001 dollars)''.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 2990 is to amend the Lower Rio Grande 
Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 
to authorize additional projects under the Act.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Rio Grande has been severely impacted by drought 
conditions during the last decade. There are more than seven 
million people residing on both sides of the Rio Grande in the 
Lower Valley, with approximately one million of those living in 
the United States. Twenty-nine water districts are located in 
the United States below the International Falcon-Amistad 
Reservoir System, which supplies nearly 95% of their water 
needs. The Lower Valley is one of the fastest growing areas 
with projected populations more than doubling by the year 2050. 
Implementation of significant improvements to irrigation canal 
delivery systems, aggressive water conservation programs, and 
improved water management are critical needs which must be 
addressed in the next few years.
    On December 28, 2000, the President signed into law the 
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and 
Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576). The legislation 
authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a program to 
investigate and identify opportunities to improve the water 
supply for selected counties along the Texas-Mexico border, and 
to provided funding authorization for engineering work, 
infrastructure construction and improvements for several 
projects.
    H.R. 2990 amends Public Law 106-576 by adding 14 new water 
conservation projects, modifying some of the criteria for water 
supply studies, increasing the authorization for carrying out 
the studies from $2 million to $8 million, and increasing the 
authorization for construction of facilities from $10 million 
to $47 million.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 2990 was introduced on October 2, 2001, by Congressman 
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX). The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Water and Power. The Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on 
May 3, 2002. On June 26, 2002, the Full Resources Committee met 
to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water and Power was 
discharged from further consideration of the bill by unanimous 
consent. Mr. Calvert offered a technical amendment which makes 
several changes to correct dates of studies. The amendment was 
adopted by unanimous consent. No further amendments were 
offered and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives, by unanimous consent.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
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 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to 
authorize additional projects under the Act.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 15, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2990, the Lower 
Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement 
Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie 
Middleton.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2990--Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and 
        Improvement Act of 2001

    Summary: H.R. 2990 would amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to add 
14 new water conservation projects to those eligible for 
federal assistance under that act. The bill also would increase 
the funds authorized for studies of these projects--from $2 
million to $8 million--and for construction of projects in the 
Lower Rio Grande Valley--from $10 million to $47 million. 
Hence, the bill would increase the existing authorization of 
appropriations by a total of $43 million.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 2990 would cost $38 million 
over the 2003-2007 period and an additional $5 million after 
that period. H.R. 2990 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 2990 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Enacting this legislation would benefit the state 
of Texas and local governments in that state that would receive 
the authorized federal assistance. Any costs incurred by those 
governments to meet the conditions of the assistance would be 
voluntary.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2990 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2003     2004     2005     2006     2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level......................................        6       10       10       10        7
Estimated outlays..................................................        3        7        9       10        9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
2990 will be enacted by the start of fiscal year 2003. The bill 
would increase the current amount authorized to be appropriated 
for the Lower Rio Grande Water Conservation and Improvement 
Program from $12 million to $55 million. To date, no funds have 
been appropriated to implement the program. Appropriated funds 
would pay for the construction of pending authorized projects 
as well as the planning, design and construction of the new 
projects included in H.R. 2990.
    Based on information from the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Harlington Irrigation District in Texas, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2990 would cost $38 million over the 2003-
2007 period and an additional $5 million after that period, 
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2990 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Enacting this legislation would benefit the 
state of Texas and local governments in that state that would 
receive the authorized federal assistance. Any costs incurred 
by these governments to meet the conditions of the assistance 
would be voluntary.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Julie Middleton; 
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie 
Miller; impact on the private sector: Cecil McPherson.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

 LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT 
                             ACT OF 2000

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 3. LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--[The Secretary, acting pursuant to the 
Reclamation Act of 1902 (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388) 
and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, shall 
undertake a program in cooperation] The Secretary, acting 
through the Bureau of Reclamation, shall undertake a program 
under cooperative agreements with the State, water users in the 
program area, and other non-Federal entities, to investigate 
and identify opportunities to improve the supply of water for 
the program area as provided in this Act. The program shall 
include the review of studies or planning reports (or both) 
prepared by any competent engineering entity for projects 
designed to conserve and transport raw water in the program 
area. As part of the program, the Secretary shall evaluate 
alternatives in the program area that could be used to improve 
water supplies, including the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(b) Program Development.--Within 6 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
the State, shall develop and publish criteria to determine 
which projects would qualify and have the highest priority for 
financing under this Act. Such criteria shall address, at a 
minimum--
          [(1) how the project relates to the near- and long-
        term water demands and supplies in the study area, 
        including how the project would affect the need for 
        development of new or expanded water supplies;
          [(2) the relative amount of water (acre feet) to be 
        conserved pursuant to the project;
          [(3) whether the project would provide operational 
        efficiency improvements or achieve water, energy, or 
        economic savings (or any combination of the foregoing) 
        at a rate of acre feet of water or kilowatt energy 
        saved per dollar expended on the construction of the 
        project; and
          [(4) if the project proponents have met the 
        requirements specified in subsection (c).]
  (b) Project Review.--Project proposals shall be reviewed and 
evaluated under the guidelines set forth in the document 
published by the Bureau of Reclamation entitled ``Guidelines 
for Preparing and Reviewing Proposals for Water Conservation 
and Improvement Projects Under P.L. 106-576'', dated June 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Financial Capability.--Before providing funding for a 
project to the non-Federal project sponsor, the Secretary shall 
determine that the non-Federal project sponsor is financially 
capable of funding the project's non-Federal share of the 
project's costs, including operation, maintenance, repair, and 
replacement.
  (e) Review Period.--Within 1 year after the date a project is 
submitted to the Secretary for approval, the Secretary, subject 
to the availability of appropriations, shall determine whether 
the project meets [the criteria established pursuant to this 
section] the guidelines referred to in subsection (b).
  (f) Report Preparation; Reimbursement.--Project sponsors may 
choose to contract with the Secretary [to prepare the reports 
required under this section. All costs associated with the 
preparation of the reports by the Secretary shall be 50 percent 
reimbursable by the non-Federal sponsor.] to have the Secretary 
prepare the reports required under this section. The Federal 
share of the cost of such preparation by the Secretary shall 
not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such preparation.
  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
[$2,000,000] $8,000,000.

SEC. 4. LOWER RIO GRANDE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION.

  (a) Project Implementation.--If the Secretary determines that 
any of the following projects meet the review criteria and 
project requirements, as set forth in section 3, the Secretary 
may conduct or participate in funding engineering work, 
infrastructure construction, and improvements for the purpose 
of conserving and transporting raw water through that project:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) In the United Irrigation District of Hidalgo 
        County, Texas, a pipeline and pumping system as 
        identified in the Sigler, Winston, Greenwood, 
        Associates, Incorporated, study dated January 2001.
          (6) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District 
        No. 2, proposed improvements to Canal C, as identified 
        in the February 8, 2001, engineering report by Martin, 
        Brown, and Perez.
          (7) In the Cameron County, Texas, Irrigation District 
        No. 2, a proposed Canal C and Canal 13 Inner Connect, 
        as identified in the February 12, 2001, engineering 
        report by Martin, Brown, and Perez.
          (8) In Delta Lake Irrigation District of Hidalgo and 
        Willacy Counties, Texas, proposed water conservation 
        projects, as identified by the AW Blair Engineering 
        report of February 13, 2001.
          (9) In the Hidalgo and Cameron County, Texas, 
        Irrigation District No. 9, a proposed project to 
        salvage spill water using automatic control of canal 
        gates as identified in the AW Blair Engineering report 
        dated February 14, 2001.
          (10) In the Brownsville Irrigation District of 
        Cameron County, Texas, a proposed main canal 
        replacement as outlined in the Holdar-Garcia & 
        Associates engineering report dated February 14, 2001.
          (11) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 16, a proposed off-district pump station 
        project as identified by the Melden & Hunt, 
        Incorporated, engineering report dated February 14, 
        2001.
          (12) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 1, a proposed canal replacement of the 
        North Branch East Main, as outlined in the Melden & 
        Hunt, Incorporated, engineering analysis dated 
        February, 2001.
          (13) In the Donna (Texas) Irrigation District, a 
        proposed improvement project as identified by the 
        Melden & Hunt, Incorporated, engineering analysis dated 
        February 13, 2001.
          (14) In the Hudspeth County, Texas, Conservation and 
        Reclamation District No. 1, the Alamo Arroyo Pumping 
        Plant water quality project as identified by the 
        engineering report and drawings by Gebhard-Sarma and 
        Associates dated July 1996 and the construction of a 
        1,000 acre-foot off-channel regulating reservoir for 
        the capture and conservation of irrigation water, as 
        identified in the engineering report by AW Blair 
        Engineering dated June 2002.
          (15) In the El Paso County, Texas, Water Improvement 
        District No. 1, the Riverside Canal Improvement Project 
        Phase I Reach A, a canal lining and water conservation 
        project as identified by the engineering report by AW 
        Blair Engineering dated June 2002.
          (16) In the Maverick County, Texas, Water Improvement 
        and Control District No. 1, the concrete lining project 
        of 12 miles of the Maverick Main Canal, identified in 
        the engineering report by AW Blair Engineering dated 
        June 2002.
          (17) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 6, rehabilitation of 10.2 miles of 
        concrete lining in the main canal between Lift Stations 
        Nos. 2 and 3 as identified in the engineering report by 
        AW Blair Engineering dated June 2002.
          (18) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 2, Wisconsin Canal Improvements as 
        identified in the Sigler, Winston, Greenwood & 
        Associates, Incorporated, engineering report dated 
        February 2001.
          (19) In the Hidalgo County, Texas, Irrigation 
        District No. 2, Lateral ``A'' Canal Improvements as 
        identified in the Sigler, Winston, Greenwood & 
        Associates, Incorporated, engineering report dated July 
        25, 2001.
  (b) Construction Cost Share.--The non-Federal share of the 
[costs of any construction] total project cost of any project 
carried out under, or with assistance provided under, this 
section shall be 50 percent. Not more than 40 percent of the 
costs of such an activity may be paid by the State. The 
remainder of the non-Federal share may include in-kind 
contributions of goods and services, and the actual funds 
previously spent on feasibility and engineering studies.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
[$10,000,000] $47,000,000 (2001 dollars).