[House Report 106-712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-712
======================================================================
DESCHUTES RESOURCES CONSERVANCY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
_______
July 10, 2000.--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. 1787]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1787) to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1787 is to reauthorize the
participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes
Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.
Background and Need
The Deschutes Resources Conservancy was authorized in 1996
as a five-year pilot project designed to achieve local
consensus on projects to improve ecosystem health in the
Deschutes River basin in Oregon. The Deschutes River drains
Oregon's high desert along the eastern front of the Cascade
Mountains and eventually flows into the Columbia River. The
river basin is used for recreation, irrigation, contains
hundreds of thousands of acres of productive forest and
rangelands, serves the treaty fishing and water rights of the
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and has Oregon's largest
non-federal hydroelectric project.
Projects funded through the Conservancy demonstration
include: piping for irrigation district delivery systems to
prevent water loss; securing water rights for instream flows to
restore flows to Squaw Creek; providing fencing of riparian
areas to protect riverbanks; working with private timberland
owners to restore riparian and wetlands areas; and seeking
donated water rights to enhance instream flows.
The existing authorization provides up to $1 million each
year for projects. Funding is provided through the Bureau of
Reclamation, the lead federal agency. H.R. 1787 would
reauthorize appropriations for the five-year pilot project from
2002 to 2006 and increase the authorization ceiling to $2
million annually.
Committee Action
H.R. 1787 was introduced on May 12, 1999, by Congressman
Greg Walden (R-OR). H.R. 1787 was referred to the Committee on
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water
and Power. On April 6, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
the bill. On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee met to consider
the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was forwarded
to the full Resources Committee by voice vote. The Committee on
Resources met on June 21, 2000, to consider the bill. No
amendments were offered and H.R. 1787 was ordered favorably
reported by voice vote to the House of Representatives.
Section-By-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The short title of the bill is ``Deschutes Resources
Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999''.
Section 2. Extension of participation of Bureau of Reclamation in
Deschutes Resources Conservancy
This section reauthorizes appropriations for the project
for an additional five years. This section also raises the
authorization ceiling from $1 million to $2 million annually.
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, June 27, 2000.
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. 1787, the
Deschutes Resources Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Applebaum.
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1787--Deschutes Resources Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 1999
Summary: H.R. 1787 would authorize the appropriation of $10
million over the 2002-2006 period for ecosystem restoration
projects in the Deschutes River basin in Oregon. Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 1787 would cost $7 million over the 2002-2005
period, with the remaining $3 million to be spent after 2005.
The legislation would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 1787 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
State and local governments would probably incur some costs to
match the funds authorized by this bill, but these costs would
be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this
estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized in the bill
will be appropriated for each year and that outlays will follow
the historical spending pattern for similar activities. The
estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1787 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 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\.................................. 1 1 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 1 1 (\2\) (\2\) 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level................................... 0 0 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 0 1 2 2 2
Spending Under H.R. 1787:
Authorization Level \1\............................... 1 1 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays..................................... 1 1 2 2 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for restoration projects in the Deschutes basin.
\2\ Less than $500,000.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1787
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. State and local governments would probably
incur some costs to match the funds authorized by this bill,
but these costs would be voluntary. Under current law, all
federal expenditures for restoration projects in the Deschutes
basin must be matched by an equal amount of nonfederal
contributions, including in-kind contributions. This
requirement would apply to the funds authorized by this bill.
Previous CBO estimate: On June 21, 1999, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 1027, the Deschutes Resources Conservancy
Reauthorization Act of 1999, as reported by the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on June 16, 1999. The
bills are nearly identical, and their estimated costs are the
same.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Applebaum.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie
Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: Natalie Tawil.
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):
SECTION 301 OF THE OREGON RESOURCE CONSERVATION ACT
SEC. 301. DESCHUTES BASIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) In General.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Bureau of Reclamation shall pay from funds
authorized under subsection (h) of this title up to 50
percent of the cost of performing any project proposed
by the Working Group and approved by the Secretary, up
to a total amount of $1,000,000 during each of the
fiscal years 1997 through 2001, and up to a total
amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this title $1,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1997 through 2001 and $2,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2006.