[House Report 106-405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-405
======================================================================
PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999
_______
October 20, 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
[To accompany H.R. 970]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 970) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
provide assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System,
Inc., for the construction of water supply facilities in
Perkins County, South Dakota, 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 ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) in 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature authorized
and directed the State Water Commission to conduct the
Southwest Area Water Supply Study, which included water service
to a portion of Perkins County, South Dakota;
(2) amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the
Southwest Pipeline project as an eligible project for Federal
cost share participation; and
(3) the Perkins County Rural Water System has continued to be
recognized by the State of North Dakota, the Southwest Water
Authority, the North Dakota Water Commission, the Department of
the Interior, and Congress as a component of the Southwest
Pipeline Project.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the Perkins
County Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
established and operated under the laws of the State of South
Dakota substantially in accordance with the feasibility study.
(2) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' means
the study entitled ``Feasibility Study for Rural Water System
for Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.'', as amended in
March 1995.
(3) Project construction budget.--The term ``project
construction budget'' means the description of the total amount
of funds that are needed for the construction of the water
supply system, as described in the feasibility study.
(4) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The
term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' means
all power requirements that are incidental to the operation of
the water supply system by the Corporation.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation.
(6) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system''
means intake facilities, pumping stations, water treatment
facilities, cooling facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines
operated by the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., to the
point of delivery of water to each entity that distributes
water at retail to individual users.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the Corporation
for the Federal share of the costs of--
(1) the planning and construction of the water supply system;
and
(2) repairs to existing public water distribution systems to
ensure conservation of the resources and to make the systems
functional under the new water supply system.
(b) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The Secretary
shall not obligate funds for the construction of the water supply
system until--
(1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met with respect to the
water supply system; and
(2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water
conservation program have been prepared and submitted to
Congress for a period of not less than 90 days before the
commencement of construction of the system.
SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result of the
construction and operation of the water supply system shall be on an
acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological equivalency, concurrent with
project construction, as provided in the feasibility study.
SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.
For operation during the period beginning May 1 and ending October 31
of each year, portions of the water supply system constructed with
assistance under this Act shall be eligible to utilize power from the
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program established by section 9 of the Act
of December 22, 1944 (Chapter 665; 58 Stat. 887), popularly known as
the Flood Control Act of 1944.
SEC. 7. FEDERAL SHARE.
The Federal share under section 4 shall be 75 percent of--
(1) the amount allocated in the total project construction
budget for the planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.
SEC. 8. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.
The non-Federal share under section 4 shall be 25 percent of--
(1) the amount allocated in the total project construction
budget for the planning and construction of the water supply
system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.
SEC. 9. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.
(a) Authorization.--At the request of the Corporation, the Secretary
may provide to the Corporation assistance in overseeing matters
relating to construction of the water supply system.
(b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds used by
the Secretary for planning and construction of the water supply system
may not exceed an amount equal to 3 percent of the amount provided in
the total project construction budget for the portion of the project to
be constructed in Perkins County, South Dakota.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
(1) $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the
water supply system under section 4; and
(2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in
development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost
indices after March 1, 1995.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 970 is to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to provide assistance to the Perkins County Rural
Water System, Inc., for the construction of water supply
facilities in Perkins County, South Dakota.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Perkins County is located in Northwest South Dakota on the
border with North Dakota. Like many areas in the High Plains,
there are insufficient water supplies and much of what is
available does not meet minimum health and safety standards. In
1982, a study was undertaken on the feasibility of building a
water supply system that could connect with the Southwest
Pipeline Project in North Dakota, which was authorized in
connection with the North Dakota Garrison Diversion Unit. Under
the North Dakota Century Law (S.L. 1983, ch. 685, Sec. 8), a
South Dakota connection was added as a component of the
Southwest Water Authority.
In the early 1990s, South Dakota and Perkins County funded
a water supply feasibility study which was completed in 1994.
The study concluded that obtaining water from the Southwest
Water Authority was the most feasible option and that the
necessary water supply system would cost approximately $20
million. Since other projected and authorized North Dakota
users have decided they will not connect to the Southwest
Pipeline Project, arrangements were made for Perkins County to
participate. As part of an agreement with North Dakota, Perkins
County would be able to obtain water at the lower operation and
maintenance cost if it furnished approximately $5.5 million to
increase the pipe size to provide 400 gallons/minute. Since the
Southwest Pipeline Project is an ongoing project, $440,000 was
provided in 1996 and $550,000 in 1997 to North Dakota. An
additional $4.5 million will need to be provided to North
Dakota during construction of the Perkins County connection to
reimburse the State for work already completed. H.R. 970
provides for a 75-25 federal-local cost share, with a total
authorization of $15 million, for the water supply project
costs.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 970 was introduced on March 3, 1999, by Congressman
John R. Thune (R-SD). H.R. 970 was referred to the Committee on
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water
and Power. In the 105th Congress, a hearing was held on similar
legislation (H.R. 1213) by the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
On August 4, 1999, the Full Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further
consideration of the measure by unanimous consent. Congressman
Billy Tauzin (R-LA) offered an amendment to clarify how Pick-
Sloan power is to be provided for project operation. It was
adopted by voice vote. 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
This section provides the short title for the bill, the
Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.
Section 2. Findings
In 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature directed the
State Water Commission to conduct the Southwest Area Water
Supply Study, which included water service to the State of
South Dakota, including a portion of Perkins County.
Amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the
Southwest Pipeline Project as an eligible project for federal
cost share participation. The Perkins County Rural Water System
is viewed as an extension of the Southwest Pipeline Project.
Section 3. Definitions
This section defines six terms used in the bill.
Section 4. Federal assistance for water supply system
Section 4(a) authorizes grants from the Secretary of the
Interior for planning and construction of the system and for
repairs to the existing distribution system to promote
conservation and efficiency. Subsection 4(b) prohibits any
obligation of funds until requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are met and a final engineering
report is submitted to Congress for 90 days. The inclusion of a
provision providing that the requirements of NEPA must be met
is not intended to suggest that such requirements would not
apply in the absence of the provision nor to suggest that a
full Environmental Impact Statement or even an Environmental
Assessment would be necessary.
Section 5. Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses
This section provides language on mitigation for fish and
wildlife losses on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological
equivalency. The Committee expects that the mitigation acreage
will be on a one-for-one basis.
Section 6. Use of Pick-Sloan power
For operation during the period beginning May 1 and ending
October 31 of each year, portions of the water supply system
shall be eligible to utilize power from the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin Program established by section 9 of the Act of December
22, 1944 (Chapter 665, 58 Stat. 887). The Committee expects
that the rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy
made available shall be the firm power rate schedule of the
Pick-Sloan Eastern Division, Western Power Administration, in
effect when the power is delivered by the Administration.
Section 7. Federal share
This section provides that the federal share shall be 75
percent of the total project construction budget for planning
and construction of the water supply system and shall be
indexed as reflected in appropriate engineering cost indices
after March 1, 1995.
Section 8. Non-federal share
This section provides that the non-federal share shall be
25 percent of the total project construction budget for
planning and construction of the water supply system and shall
be indexed as reflected in appropriate engineering cost indices
after March 1, 1995.
Section 9. Construction oversight
This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
provide construction oversight and limits expenditures by the
Secretary under this authority to three percent of the
construction budget.
Section 10. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary
of the Interior $15 million for the planning and construction
of the system plus additional funds to cover increases in
project costs during construction.
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. 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, August 5, 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. 970, the Perkins
County Rural Water System Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley
(for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (For the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 970--Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999
Summary: H.R. 970 would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (the
bureau), to provide financial assistance to the Perkins County
Rural Water System, Inc., for planning and constructing the
Perkins County Rural Water System. To carry out these
activities, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $15
million in 1995 dollars plus additional amounts to cover
increases in project costs during construction. The system
would provide water to members of the Perkins County Rural
Water System, Inc., in Perkins County, South Dakota.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 970 would require
appropriations of $18 million over the 2000-2004 period. We
estimate that outlays would total $16 million over that period
and $2 million after 2004. Enacting the bill would not affect
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply.
H.R. 970 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
State and 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. 970 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--
--------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level...................................... 1 3 5 5 4
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 1 2 4 5 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end of fiscal year
1999 and that the estimated amounts necessary to implement the
bill will be appropriated for each year. Based on information
provided by the bureau, CBO anticipates that environmental and
engineering studies for the project would be completed by the
end of fiscal year 2001, that construction would begin in 2002,
and that the project would be completed by 2006. (The bureau
has indicated that it would take between three and five years
to complete the project.) The estimated amounts of annual
funding needed to meet this schedule are based on information
provided by the bureau.
The total estimated cost of $18 million over the 2000-2004
period reflects observed inflation from 1995 through 1998 and
estimated inflation for 1999 through 2004. CBO estimates that
inflation of between 2 percent and 3 percent a year would
increase the project's total cost from $15 million in 1995
dollars to about $18 million, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts over the 2000-2004 period. The estimated
outlays are based on historical rates of spending for the types
of activities authorized by the bill. The Perkins County Rural
Water System, Inc., would bear the cost of operating and
maintaining the project.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 970 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. The bill would set the nonfederal share of project costs
at 25 percent. Any state or local governments choosing to
participate in the project would do so on a voluntary basis.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On March 11, 1999, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 243, the Perkins County Rural Water System
Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources on March 4, 1999. The two bills
are nearly identical, and the two cost estimates are identical.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley; 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 any State, local or
tribal law.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.