House Report 106-259 - SLY PARK UNIT CONVEYANCE ACT

[House Report 106-259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-259

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

SLY PARK UNIT CONVEYANCE ACT

_______

July 26, 1999.--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

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 992]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 992) to convey the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir to the El
Dorado Irrigation District, 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 out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Sly Park Unit Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the El Dorado
Irrigation District, a political subdivision of the State of
California that has its principal place of business in the city
of Placerville, El Dorado County, California.
(2) Original construction contract.--The term ``original
construction contract'' means the repayment contract between
the District and the Secretary numbered 14-06-200-949, as
amended and renewed.
(3) Project.--The term ``Project'' means all of the right,
title, and interest in and to the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir,
the Camp Creek Diversion Dam and Tunnel, and other conduits,
canals, facilities, and property held by the United States
pursuant to or related to the authorization in the Act entitled
``An Act to authorize the American River Basin Development,
California, for irrigation and reclamation, and for other
purposes'', approved October 14, 1949 (63 Stat. 852 chapter
690).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(5) Supplemental contracts.--The term ``supplemental
contracts'' means the repayment contracts between the District
and the Secretary numbered 14-06-200-7734, 14-06-200-4282A, and
14-06-200-8536A.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF PROJECT.

(a) In General.--In consideration of the District accepting the
obligations of the Federal Government for the Project and upon the
payment by the District of the net present value of the remaining
repayment obligation of the District under the original construction
contract, determined in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-129 (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), the
Secretary shall convey the Project to the District. Such conveyance
shall be subject to a reversion in favor of the United States if the
remaining repayment obligations of the District under the supplemental
contracts are not completed in accordance with those contracts.
(b) Deadline.--
(1) In general.--If no changes in Project operations are
expected following the conveyance under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall complete the conveyance expeditiously, but not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Deadline if changes in operations intended.--If the
District notifies the Secretary that it intends to change
Project operations as a result of the conveyance under
subsection (a), the Secretary--
(A) shall take into account those potential changes
for the purpose of completing any required
environmental evaluation associated with the
conveyance; and
(B) shall complete the conveyance by not later than 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Administrative costs of conveyance.--If the Secretary
fails to complete the conveyance under this Act before the
applicable deadline under paragraph (1) or (2), the full cost
of administrative action and environmental compliance for the
conveyance shall be paid by the Secretary. If the Secretary
completes the conveyance before that deadline, \1/2\ of such
cost shall be paid by the District.

SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
significantly expanding or otherwise changing the use or operation of
the Project from its current use and operation.
(b) Future Alterations.--If the District alters the use or operation
of the Project it shall comply with all applicable laws or regulations
governing such changes at that time (subject to section 5).

SEC. 5. RELATIONSHIP TO CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS.

(a) Original Construction Contract.--Provision of consideration by
the District in accordance with section 3(a) shall extinguish all
repayment obligations under the original construction contract.
(b) Subsequent Construction Contracts.--
(1) Payment obligations not affected.--Subject to paragraph
(2), the conveyance of the Project under this Act does not
affect the repayment obligations of the District under the
subsequent construction contracts.
(2) Prepayment.--The District may at any time prepay its
remaining repayment obligations under the subsequent
construction contracts by tendering to the Secretary the net
present value, at that time, of the remaining repayment
obligations under those contracts, determined in accordance
with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-129 (as in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act). Effective on the
date of such tender, or on the date of completion of all
repayment obligations under the subsequent construction
contracts, whichever occurs first, any reversionary interest of
the United States in and to the Project is extinguished.

SEC. 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

(a) Reclamation Laws.--Except as provided in subsection (b), upon
conveyance of the Project under this Act, the Reclamation Act of 1902
(82 Stat. 388) and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto
shall not apply to the Project.
(b) Payments Into the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.--The
El Dorado Irrigation District shall continue to make payments into the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund until the year 2029. The
District's obligation shall be calculated in the same manner as Central
Valley Project water contractors.

SEC. 7. LIABILITY.

Except as otherwise provided by law, effective on the date of
conveyance of the Project under this Act, the United States shall not
be liable for damages of any kind arising out of any act, omission, or
occurrence based on its prior ownership or operation of the conveyed
property.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 992 is to convey the Sly Park Dam and
Reservoir to the El Dorado Irrigation District, and for other
purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) facility transfers has been of
particular interest to the Congress, local irrigation
districts, and the Administration in recent years. Facility
transfers represent an effort to shrink the federal government
and shift the responsibilities for ownership into the hands of
those who can more efficiently operate and maintain them. As a
result of the National Performance Review (Reinventing
Government II), BOR, which is part of the Department of the
Interior, initiated a program in 1995 to transfer ownership of
some of its facilities to non-federal entities. However, to
date, the Administration has not presented a legislative
proposal for project transfers. During the 105th Congress, two
legislatively initiated BOR transfers bills were signed into
law that directed the Secretary of Interior to convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
specified project facilities.
Much of the momentum for these transfers comes from local
irrigation districts that are seeking title to these projects.
The federal government holds title to more than 600 BOR water
projects throughout the West. A growing number of these
projects are now paid out and operated and maintained by local
irrigation districts. The districts seek to have the facilities
transferred to them since many of the districts now have the
expertise needed to manage the systems and can do so more
efficiently then the federal government. BOR has already
transferred operation and maintenance responsibilities for
about 400 of the projects to local irrigation districts. Under
the provisions of Section VI of the Reclamation Act of 1902,
title to project facilities remain with the United States
unless otherwise provided by Congress, even if project
beneficiaries have completed their repayment obligation.
Section VI of the Reclamation Act of 1902 states:

The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized
and directed to use the reclamation fund for the
operation and maintenance of all reservoirs and
irrigation works constructed under the provisions of
this act: Provided, That when the payments required by
this act are made for the major portion of the lands
irrigated from the waters of any of the works herein
provided for, then the management and operation of such
irrigation works shall pass to the owners of the lands
irrigated thereby, to be maintained at their expense
under such form of organization and under such rules
and regulations as may be acceptable to the Secretary
of the Interior: Provided, That the title to and the
management and operation of the reservoirs and the
works necessary for their protection and operation
shall remain in the Government until otherwise provided
by Congress.

32 Stat. 389; 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 491, 498

Many of these projects were constructed in remote locations
and at a time when there were no local communities and
utilities near the BOR project. Furthermore, many of the States
in which the projects were built did not have a sufficient tax
base to fund them. However, as the West became more populated,
and with the urbanization of these areas, the BOR now owns and
operates public facilities that would be owned, operated, and
funded by private corporations or local government agencies if
they were constructed today.
Legislative initiatives to transfer the title of BOR
facilities have been in play for many years. Two bills enacted
during the 105th Congress and signed into law directed the
Secretary of the Interior to convey all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to selected project
features to the Burley Irrigation District and the Canadian
River Project. See Public Law 105-351 and Public Law 105-316.
In addition, Title XIV of Public Law 102-575 directed the
Secretary to transfer the Rio Grande Project in New Mexico to
the local irrigation district, once the local irrigation
district consented to amend a contract.

Background of the Sly Park Project

The Sly Park Unit was originally authorized under the
American River Act of October 14, 1949. The Unit includes Sly
Park Dam and Jenkinson Lake on Sly Park Creek, Camp Creek
Diversion Dam on Cam Creek, and Camino Conduit. Upon completion
in 1955, the operation of the facilities was transferred to the
El Dorado Irrigation District. The District is the major water
supplier in El Dorado County, providing service throughout a
200 square-mile area in the western part of the County. In
cooperation with BOR, the District operates the Sly Park
Recreation Area, which offers camping, boating, swimming,
picnicking and fishing.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 992 was introduced on March 4, 1999, by Congressman
John T. Doolittle (R-CA). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. On February 2, 1999, the
Subcommittee held a hearing concerning BOR title transfers. The
Commissioner of the BOR, Eluid Martinez, testified that Sly
Park could be a good candidate for title transfer.
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee met to mark up the
bill. Mr. Doolittle offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, technical in nature, designed to make the bill
easier to read. The primary feature of the amendment included
definitions for the contracts being paid off by the District
and how the contracts with remaining repayment obligations
would be identified. The new definitions included ``original
construction contract'' and ``supplemental contracts.'' The
amendment also provided for the minor rewording for several
provisions with no intent to change the policy directives of
the bill itself. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. The
bill was then ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee
by voice vote. On March 17, 1999, the Full Resources Committee
met to consider the bill. Congressman George Miller (D-CA)
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to
authorize, rather than direct, the Secretary to convey the Sly
Park Unit. The amendmentfailed on a voice vote. The bill 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 this bill is the Sly Park Unit
Conveyance Act.

Section 2. Definitions

This section defines five terms used in the Act.

Section 3. Conveyance of project

This section directs the Secretary of Interior to convey
the Sly Park Dam and Reservoir to the El Dorado Irrigation
District. However, the sale of the Sly Park Unit would not
affect the payment obligation of the District under additional,
supplemental contracts it has with the Secretary of the
Interior. Payments under those contracts will continue under
the terms of those contracts.
The supplemental contracts are 9(D) loans, administered by
BOR. The BOR has other loans with public entities where the
title to the facilities are held in the name of the local
entity. Like any other federal loan program, the money needs to
be paid back at predetermined rate, regardless of whether the
water is used for agricultural or municipal purposes.
Additionally, the legislation collateralizes the loan by making
the conveyance subject to a reversion in favor of the United
States if the remaining repayment obligations of the District
under the supplemental contracts are not completed in
accordance with those contracts.

Section 4. Relationship to existing operations

The operation and use of water from the Sly Park Project
after a proposed transfer is governed by various State and
local regulatory agencies. The current water rights for the
project are under the jurisdiction of the California State
Water Resources Control Board. Any change in storage volume,
diversions and environmental release is governed by the State
Board.
Land use decisions in the Sly Park Service Area are under
the jurisdiction of El Dorado County. All growth or development
decisions are the responsibility of the County and its adopted
General Plan and zoning regulations. Full California
environmental law compliance, as well as a full public review
process, is required for any development project.
The Committee expects that title transfer should occur in
an open and fair public process within the affected community.
The Committee does not want to establish a one size fits all
statutory procedure that would limit a State, or community from
developing a process to address issues surrounding each
individual project, and how it should be transferred.
Furthermore, it is not the intent of the Committee to use the
National Environmental Policy Act as a means to stall, or halt
a project from transferring to a local entity. If environmental
documentation is needed to facilitate a transfer, it is the
intent of the Committee to have it done in a timely manner. For
example, H.R. 992 contains a provision that, if no changes in
Project operations are expected following the conveyance of
title then the Secretary shall complete the conveyance
expeditiously, but not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment. If the District intends to change Project
operations as a result of conveyance of the Project the
Secretary shall take that into consideration and complete the
conveyance within two years. If the Secretary fails to meet the
conveyance deadlines the full costs of administrative action
and environmental compliance for the conveyance shall be borne
by the Secretary. If the Secretary completes the conveyance
before the deadlines, one half of the cost will be paid by the
District.

Section 5. Relationship to contract obligations

This section clarifies the obligations of the District
under its original construction contract and its subsequent
construction contracts.

Section 6. Relationship to other laws

Power customers of the Central Valley Project (CVP) had
raised concerns that since their contributions to the CVP
Restoration Fund are not capped, their contributions would be
increased to compensate for the fact that the El Dorado
Irrigation District would no longer be paying into the Fund.
Last year, the Committee addressed this concern by requiring
the El Dorado Irrigation District to continue making payments
into the Fund until 2029 (the remaining period of their
repayment obligation), as required under Public Law 102-575.

Section 7. Liability

This section clarifies the liability of the United States
regarding the conveyed property.

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 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant 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. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, enactment of this bill would result in a net
decrease in direct spending of $2.1 million in 2000. However,
this savings would be offset on a present-value basis by a loss
of receipts over the 2000-2022 period.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII 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 on this bill.
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, March 19, 1999.
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 H.R. 992, the Sly Park
Unit Conveyance Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gary Brown
(for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 992--Sly Park Unit Conveyance Act

Summary; H.R. 992 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to convey
the Sly Park Unit of the Central Valley Project in California
to the El Dorado Irrigation District. The following conditions
would apply to the transfer:
The Secretary would be directed to complete the
conveyance within 180 days of enactment if project operations
are not expected to change following the conveyance and within
two years if they are. The federal government and the district
would split the cost of the conveyance if it occurs by the
relevant deadline; otherwise, the federal government would bear
the full cost.
The transfer would be contingent upon the district
paying the net present value of a portion of its outstanding
financial obligations to the bureau. The federal government
would hold a reversionary interest in the Sly Park Unit if the
remaining obligations are not repaid.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 992 would cost less
than $50,000 in appropriated funds over the 2000-2004 period.
CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 992 would yield a net
decrease in direct spending of $2.1 million in 2000, but that
this near-term cash savings would be offset on a present-value
basis by the loss of receipts over the 2000-2022 period.
Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply.
H.R. 992 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Local governments might incur some costs as a result of the
bill's enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 992 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).

Estimated Budget Authority...................................... 0 -2 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Estimated Outlays............................................... 0 -2 (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Implementing the bill also would require new spending subject to appropriation of less than $50,000 in 2000.
\2\ Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO
assumes that H.R. 992 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year
1999 and that the estimated amounts necessary to implement the
bill (less than $50,000) will be appropriated in fiscal year
2000.

Direct spending

H.R. 992 would direct the El Dorado Irrigation District to
pay the net present value of its outstanding obligations to the
United States for its existing share of water storage at the
Central Valley Project. CBO estimates that such payments would
total $2.3 million in 2000. Those receipts would be offset by
the loss of currently scheduled repayments of about $200,000 a
year over the 2000-2022 period.
H.R. 992 would not require the district to prepay its
outstanding obligations for water delivery facilities. However,
the bill would provide for returning ownership of the Sly Park
Unit if the district fails to repay these amounts. Based on
information provided by the bureau, CBO estimates that
approximately $16 million in debt would remain outstanding
after the transfer. All amounts are scheduled to be repaid
(under current law), mostly without interest, by 2019. CBO does
not estimate any significant change in the likely stream of
payments to the United States if this bill is enacted.

Spending subject to appropriation

Based on information provided by the bureau, CBO
anticipates that the transfer would occur within 180 days of
enactment and that the bureau and the district would split the
cost of conveying the facilities. CBO estimates that completing
the conveyance would require new spending subject to
appropriation of less than $50,000 in fiscal year 2000. This
amount would be used for preparing transfer documents and
conducting environmental reviews.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending receipts. The net
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures
are shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year,
the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays................. 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Changes in receipts................ Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 992 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. The conveyance authorized by this bill would be voluntary
on the part of the district, and any costs incurred by it as a
result of the conveyance would be accepted on that basis.
Before the unit could be conveyed, the bill would require the
district to pay the present value of certain outstanding
obligations to the United States and to pay half the cost of
the conveyance. CBS estimates that the prepayment would be
about $2.3 million in fiscal year 2000 and that the district's
share of the conveyance cost would be less than $50,000.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Gary Brown. Impact on
State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, 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 State, local, or
tribal law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

DISSENTING VIEWS

Since the Committee first considered the Sly Park transfer
more than 10 years ago, we have never been afforded an
opportunity to look into the implications of the District's
plans for use of the project after transfer. Will the District
divert additional water from the American River? Could the
transfer fuel urbanization pressures in the District's service
area and possibly jeopardize habitat for endangered or
threatened species? These and other matters are significant and
they should be examined closely before transfer decisions are
made final. Unfortunately, the District has carefully avoided
discussion of this transfer proposal in local public forums,
and opportunities for stakeholder participation and public
review have been stifled. The District has even avoided
opportunities to discuss the terms of the project transfer with
he Bureau of Reclamation, apparently preferring to take its
chances in Congress. And the current legislation would allow
the District to avoid compliance with almost all standards
procedures, administrative reviews, and environmental law. As a
result, the legislation continues to languish after a full
decade.
H.R. 992 directs, rather than authorizes, the Secretary of
the Interior to convey the Sly Park Unit to the Central Valley
Project to the El Dorado Irrigation District. The bill as
reported effectively eliminates the discretion of he Secretary
of the Interior in determining whether to proceed with the
project transfer. Normal procedural requirements, including
environmental reviews, could easily be bypassed or subverted by
the mandatory transfer requirement.
H.R. 992 also does not set a fixed transfer price for the
project. Instead, the bill assumes that the eventual repayment
of current debts will somehow replace the concept of a transfer
price based on the actual or negotiated value of the project
assets. This notion was rejected in 1991 by the Interior
Department's Inspector General, who concluded, we do not
believe, therefore, that the reimbursable costs should be used
as the basis for establishing the sales price of Federal assets
because use of this pricing methodology does not protect he
interests of the Federal taxpayer or fully recover the
Government's investment in the facilities.'' (IG report No. 91-
I-822, p. 8).
The bill also leaves in place the El Dorado Irrigation
District's current repayment obligation for its share of the
capital costs of construction of he Sly Park Unit, a debt of
approximately $9.7 million. The Commissioner of Reclamation has
correctly noted that this language, in effect, would require
the Bureau of Reclamation to serve a banker for the El Dorado
Irrigation District. In a March 10, 1999 letter to the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power, Commissioner Martinez stated:

By structuring the transfer in this manner, the
District would not have to raise funds in the market,
nor would it be required to use existing reserves to
finance the payout of its obligation. The Federal
government would, in essence, be subsidizing the
District's transfer with below market interest rates
for the municipal and industrial portion of its
repayment obligation and with no interest rate
applicable to the agricultural portion of the repayment
obligation.

H.R. 992 as reported ensures that taxpayers subsidies to
the El Dorado Irrigation District will continue. Under the
bill, the United States will not receive a fair return on the
taxpayers' investment in this project.
There is also no limitation in H.R. 992 regarding how the
district might obtain funds to pay off the remaining repayment
obligations. Under the bill as reported, Federal funds could be
used to pay off this federal debt. Tax advantaged funds
(municipal bond financing) could be used to the additional
detriment of the federal tax payer and treasury. The
beneficiaries of Reclamation project transfers should be
prohibited from using federal funds, or tax advantaged funding,
to pay the costs of acquiring their projects. Use of public
funds or financing, combined with the inherent interest subsidy
and artificially low transfer price, is triple dippling into
the federal treasury.
The bill also attempts to limit the scope of NEPA analysis
by stating that the Act shall not be construed as expanding or
other wise changing the use and operation of the Project. Yet
is goes on to imply that the District may change operations and
uses if it complies with applicable law. The NEPA analysis may
therefore be constrained by the bill's requirement that the Act
shall not be construed as changing operations of the Project,
but the District is under no limitations as to future use.
The El Dorado Irrigation District could easily resolve the
issues identified herein by agreeing to participate in open
discussions regarding project transfer opportunities with the
Bureau of Reclamation and other stakeholders in the project
area. A transfer agreement incorporating full public
disclosure, reasonable project transfer terms, and honest
compliance with procedural requirements would in all probably
easily be enacted by Congress.

George Miller.
Peter DeFazio.