Report text available as:

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

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-202

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



 
       CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM, CALIFORNIA

                                _______
                                

 July 14, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 901]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 901) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
construct a bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to 
Folsom Dam in California, 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. CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with 
the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security, may carry out 
a project to design and construct a bridge on Federal land west of and 
adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. In carrying out the project, the 
Secretary of the Interior may also construct necessary linkages from 
the bridge to existing roadways and provide for reestablishment of 
administrative facilities located at the Dam that will be affected by 
construction of the bridge.
  (b) Design and Construction.--In designing and constructing the 
bridge, the Secretary of the Interior shall maximize the economy, 
safety, and security of Folsom Dam's future operation, maintenance, and 
construction activities.
  (c) Size of Bridge.--The Secretary of the Interior shall construct 
the bridge as a 2-lane bridge unless the city of Folsom requests, at 
such time as the Secretary may require, that the bridge be constructed 
as a 4-lane bridge. If the city of Folsom submits such a request, the 
city shall enter into an appropriate cost-sharing agreement with the 
Secretary.
  (d) Transfer to City of Folsom.--Before initiation of construction of 
the bridge, the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into an agreement 
with the city of Folsom to provide that, upon completion of 
construction of the bridge--
          (1) the Secretary shall transfer to the city of Folsom all 
        right, title, and interest of the United States to the bridge 
        and connecting structures;
          (2) the Secretary shall transfer to the city of Folsom 
        necessary easements to provide access to the bridge; and
          (3) the city of Folsom shall assume full responsibility for 
        operation and maintenance of the bridge and connecting 
        structures in perpetuity.
  (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project is 
as follows:
          (1) If the project is constructed as a 2-lane bridge, the 
        project shall be constructed at full Federal expense.
          (2) If the project is constructed as a 4-lane bridge, the 
        city of Folsom shall be required to contribute 20 percent of 
        the cost of the project.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section a total of $50,000,000 for 
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2003.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 901 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and 
adjacent to Folsom Dam in California, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized construction of 
Folsom Dam as a 355,000 acre feet flood control facility. The 
final authorization came in the American River Basin 
Development Act of October 14, 1949 (Public Law 81-356), which 
created the Folsom and Sly Park Units of the Central Valley 
Project and provided for the enlargement of Folsom Reservoir to 
1,000,000 acre feet as a multipurpose facility with a 162,000 
kilowatt powerplant. Folsom Dam consists of a concrete main 
section flanked by two earthfill wing dams.
    Folsom Dam was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
however the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) manages and 
operates the dam. It is one of the few concrete and earthfill 
dams with a two-lane public roadway that connects fast growing 
communities. As a result of the events on September 11, 2001, a 
Department of Defense Defense Threat Reduction Agency analysis 
prompted Reclamation to unilaterally and permanently close the 
public roadway for enhanced security reasons on February 28, 
2003, with one week's notice. At the time of this unique 
closure, Reclamation estimated that 18,000 vehicles used the 
road per day.
    Testimony received from witnesses during a Subcommittee 
hearing indicated that closure was necessary for homeland 
security purposes. Failure of Folsom Dam would put at risk 
approximately 300,000 residents, 5,000 businesses and $25 
billion in property, including major highways, schools, and 
California's State Capitol. Witnesses, including a board member 
of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, also testified 
that bridge construction for homeland security reasons should 
be independent of efforts to raise Folsom Dam by seven feet.
    All witnesses spoke of the need for a bridge on federal 
land below Folsom Dam as a way to mitigate the impacts of 
Reclamation's road closure. Prior to the closure, Reclamation 
conducted a number of assessments citing the eventual need to 
replace the Folsom Dam road with a permanent bridge in light of 
security reasons. One such assessment specifically included a 
Reclamation design analysis in 2000 of a bridge envisioned in 
H.R. 901. Reclamation's bridge design concept emanated from its 
successful design and construction of 17 bridges, including the 
Auburn and Glen Canyon bridges, over the last 30 years.
    As ordered reported, H.R. 901 recognizes Reclamation's 
operation of the dam, closure of the road, the agency's design 
concept of a Folsom bridge and its work on prior bridges. As 
such, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to coordinate with the Transportation and Homeland 
Security Departments in designing and constructing a bridge and 
connecting approach roads approximately 1,000 feet downstream 
of the dam.
    Before initiating construction of the roadway, the 
Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the City of Folsom 
to transfer the rights, title and interests in the bridge and 
connecting structures to the City of Folsom. The Secretary is 
also required to transfer all necessary easements to provide 
access to the bridge. The City of Folsom shall assume full 
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the bridge 
and connecting structures in perpetuity.
    The reported bill authorizes $50,000,000 for the design and 
construction of the bridge, approach roads and structures, and 
for the relocation of Reclamation's administrative facilities 
that would be affected by the bridge construction. In light of 
the coordination and an anticipated memorandum agreement 
between the Interior, Transportation and Homeland Security 
Departments, H.R. 901 does not specifically designate federal 
funding sources.
    H.R. 901 also envisions the need for a local cost share on 
a bridge designed to support future traffic flow requirements. 
The bill requires full federal funding for a two lane bridge to 
mitigate for the federal government's unique and unilateral 
homeland security decision to close the two lane Folsom Dam 
Road. However, the bill gives the City of Folsom the decision 
to request the federal government to build a four lane bridge 
if the City pays 20% of the bridge's cost. This cost share is 
identical to the local cost share for similar federal bridge 
projects. The bill does not follow the cost share formula for 
the ongoing Hoover Dam bypass project, which was originally 
intended to relieve congestion on an interstate highway. The 
road over Hoover Dam remains open to limited vehicular traffic 
while Reclamation closed the local Folsom Dam Road permanently 
for unique homeland security circumstances.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 901 was introduced on February 25, 2003, by 
Congressman Doug Ose (R-CA). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Water and Power. On April 1, 2003, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On April 3, 2003, the 
Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were 
offered and the bill was forwarded to the full Resources 
Committee by voice vote. On June 11, 2003, the full Resources 
Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Calvert offered 
an amendment to facilitate the coordination of the Interior, 
Transportation and Homeland Security Departments on the project 
and to require a 20% local cost share if the City of Folsom 
decides that a four lane bridge is necessary. The amendment 
also reduced the funding amount from $66,500,000 to 
$50,000,000. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill 
was ordered reported to the House of Representatives by a 
rollcall vote of 22 Yeas to 20 Nays, as follows:


                           SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Construction of bridge adjacent to Folsom Dam, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in 
coordination with the Secretaries of the Transportation and 
Homeland Security Departments, to carry out a project to design 
and construct a bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to 
Folsom Dam in California. Reestablishment of administrative 
facilities impacted by the change in bridge location will also 
be accomplished. The Secretary shall construct a two lane 
bridge unless the City of Folsom requests construction of a 
four lane bridge. If the City submits such a request, it shall 
enter into a cost sharing agreement with the Secretary. Prior 
to construction, the Secretary shall transfer all right, title, 
and interest to the bridge, connecting structures and easements 
to the City of Folsom. The City shall be responsible for all 
operation and maintenance of the bridge and connecting 
structures in perpetuity. The bill further stipulates that a 
two lane bridge shall be constructed at full federal expense 
but the City of Folsom will contribute 20% of the cost of a 
four lane bridge. $50,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated 
to carry out the bill.

            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 authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and 
adjacent to Folsom Dam in California, and for other purposes..
    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, June 17, 2003.
Hon. Richard Pombo,
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. 901, a bill to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge 
on federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in 
California, and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie 
Middleton.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 901--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
        construct a bridge on federal land west of and adjacent to 
        Folsom Dam in California, and for other purposes

    Summary: H.R. 901 would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation to design and build 
a two-lane bridge on federal land near the Folsom Dam in 
California. If the city of Folsom wished to build a four-lane 
bridge, however, the city would be required to contribute 20 
percent of the cost of the project. In addition the bill would 
authorize the Secretary to transfer title to the bridge, the 
connecting structures, and the associated easements to the city 
of Folsom. Following the transfer, the city of Folsom would be 
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the bridge and 
connecting structures.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 901 would cost about $40 
million over the 2004-2008 period and an additional $10 million 
after that period. Enacting H.R. 901 would not affect direct 
spending or revenues. H.R. 901 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.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 901 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--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level.................................        10        10        10        10        10
Estimated Outlays.............................................         3         7        10        10        10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
901 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2004 and that 
the necessary funds will be appropriated for each year. CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 901 would cost approximately 
$40 million over the 2004-2008 period and an additional $10 
million after that period.
    The bill would authorize the appropriation of $50 million 
to design and construct a new bridge adjacent to the Folsom 
Dam, including all approach roads and structures, and to 
relocate administrative facilities that would be affected by 
the bridge construction. Based on information from the Bureau 
of Reclamation, CBO expects that it will take approximately 
five years to complete the design and construction of this 
project and that funds could be appropriated in roughly equal 
installments over that period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 901 
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 California and local governments in the vicinity of 
the new bridge. These governments might incur some costs to 
meet conditions imposed by this bill, but those costs would be 
voluntary.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller; and Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
    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

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    While there is general agreement that a new bridge should 
be built to replace the current two-lane road over the top of 
Folsom Dam in Northern California, H.R. 901 is seriously 
deficient in several respects.
    At its core, despite being advertised as a water project 
bill, H.R. 901 is pure and simple a highway authorization bill 
and if enacted, would siphon away scarce federal dollars 
available to the Bureau of Reclamation reserved for bona fide 
water resources projects. In fact, at a cost of over $60 
million, the money for the proposed Folsom Bridge would consume 
about a third of the Bureau of Reclamation's budget for 
California water projects in the coming fiscal year. Even if 
funding were stretched out over several years, this bridge 
project will threaten the timely completion of Bureau of 
Reclamation water projects all over the West.
    We believe this to be an inappropriate use of water 
resources funding and patently unfair to everyone who depends 
on Bureau of Reclamation projects whether it be for irrigation, 
water supply, creation or for the support of fish and wildlife 
resources.
    In our view, if the sponsors of H.R. 901 were really 
serious about addressing the transportation problems in the 
area of the Folsom Dam, they would seek to have a new bridge 
considered by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure which has jurisdiction over the Federal aid to 
States highway program. Indeed, Federal highway authorization 
bills routinely are considered in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, voted on by the Congress, and enacted 
into law. These highway bills proceed in that Committee subject 
to well-practiced rules, including the understanding that 
Members of the Committee are never asked to cut funding for 
existing projects in order to make way for someone else's 
project. But that is exactly what is happening with H.R. 901 
and the Resources Committee, and that is wrong, that is unfair, 
and that is a major reason why Members should oppose H.R. 901.
    We would also note that unlike the vast majority of highway 
projects considered by the Congress, H.R. 901 is deficient in 
the extent of local cost-sharing that would be involved. 
Certainly it is not inappropriate to require that the local 
communities who would benefit from the bridge envisioned by 
H.R. 901 should participate in funding its construction, no 
matter what Federal agency ultimately is directed to build the 
project.
    This is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats 
alike will be asked to cut back or delay their Bureau of 
Reclamation water projects to make room for funding the 
proposed Folsom Bridge.
    For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 901 and will urge that it 
be defeated if brought to the House Floor for consideration.

                                   Nick Rahall.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   George Miller.
                                   Cal Dooley.
                                   Jay Inslee.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.

                        COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, July 3, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 11, 2003, the Committee on 
Resources ordered reported with an amendment H.R. 901, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge 
on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in 
California, and for other purposes. Based on my discussions 
with the Parliamentarian, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure would have a jurisdictional interest in the 
reported bill.
    Congressman Doug Ose, the author of the bill, has asked me 
to expedite consideration of the measure so that funding can be 
sought for this important bridge this fiscal year. Therefore, I 
ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure not 
seek a sequential referral of H.R. 901. By foregoing this 
referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
does not waive any subject matter jurisdiction over the H.R. 
901 nor should this action be considered as precedent for 
future actions. In addition, should a conference on this bill 
or a similar Senate bill become necessary, I agree to support 
your request for conferees on those matters within the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's jurisdiction. 
Finally, I would be pleased to include my letter and your 
response in the bill report on H.R. 901.
    Thank you for your continued cooperation in matters under 
our shared jurisdiction and I look forward to seeing H.R. 901 
on the Floor soon.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, July 7, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
901, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a 
bridge on federal land near Folsom Dam in California. As you 
correctly point out, this legislation also falls within the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.
    I appreciate your strong interest and those of the bill's 
sponsor, Congressman Ose, in moving this important legislation 
to the House Floor as soon as possible. Accordingly, I will 
support discharging the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure from further consideration of the bill.
    I appreciate your assurances that a decision to be 
discharged from further consideration of the bill should not be 
considered as precedent for future referrals of similar 
measures or as affecting the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee's subject matter jurisdiction and that you would 
support the appointment of conferees from the Committee should 
a conference with the Senate become necessary. In addition, I 
would appreciate your inclusion our letters in any Floor debate 
accompanying House consideration of H.R. 901.
    I congratulate you for your leadership on H.R. 901 and look 
forward to working with you and your colleagues as the 
legislation advances.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.