[House Report 106-856]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-856
======================================================================
RECLAMATION REFORM REFUND ACT OF 2000
_______
September 18, 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. 4847]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4847) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to refund
certain amounts received by the United States pursuant to the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 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. 4847 is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to refund certain amounts received by the United
States pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), direct and
indirect landowners and lessees (landholders) are required to
file RRA forms prior to receiving irrigation water. Such forms
are submitted to districts who control the actual delivery of
irrigation water. The Bureau of Reclamation has wrestled with
the question of whether it should curtail the delivery of
irrigation water to landholders who do not have forms on file.
To address the problem, the Bureau of Reclamation in 1988
billed districts the full-cost rate for any of their
landholders who were required to submit RRA forms, but did not
file the form, and still received water for the period of the
violation. Some districts, but not all, paid their bills.
As a result of the Bureau's review of the issue and a rule
making action, in March 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation began
to impose an administrative fee to address violations of the
RRA form requirements. In the case Orange Cove Irrigation
District v. The United States, the judge ruled that ``it is
clear from the legislative history of the R.A. (Reclamation
Act) that Congress did not intend for the Bureau to assess
monetary penalties or fines for failure to submit the required
forms.'' After further review, the Bureau revised its position
and attempted to refund part of the monies paid, but was
advised that it did not have the legal authority to do so. This
legislation directs and authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to
refund the fines the Bureau received, subject to the
requirements in Section 2, (a) and the exception in (2)(b) of
the bill.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 4847 was introduced on July 13, 2000, by Congressman
Cal Dooley (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Water and Power. On July 26, 2000, the Resources Committee met
to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water and Power was
discharged from further consideration of the measure by
unanimous consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
unanimous consent.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The short title of the bill is the ``Reclamation Reform
Refund Act of 2000''.
Section 2. Refund of certain amounts received under Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982
As described above, this section authorizes appropriations
of up to $3 million to be made available for refunds, and
directs the Secretary of the Interior to make these funds
pursuant to certain requirements.
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 18, 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. 4847, the
Reclamation Reform Refund Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash
Driskill.
Sincerely,
Arlene Holen
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 4847--Reclamation Reform Refund Act of 2000
H.R. 4847 would authorize the appropriation of $3 million
to refund certain payments made by water districts to the
Bureau of Reclamation (bureau) before January 1, 1994. Until
that time, the bureau charged the full cost of providing
irrigation water, rather than a reduced rate, to those water
districts whose customers failed to file the appropriate forms.
Currently, the bureau assesses a $260 fee for failure to file
such forms.
This bill would authorize and direct the bureau to refund
the difference between the full cost rate and the reduced rate
for providing irrigation water, less a $260 fee, to certain
districts with customers who did not complete the bureau's
required paperwork prior to January 1, 1994. Based on
information from the bureau, CBO estimates that about 80
districts would be owed a total of about $650,000 under the
refund formula specified in the bill. Hence, although the bill
would authorize the appropriation of $3 million, we estimate
that implementing the bill would cost about $1 million in 2001.
H.R. 4847 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would benefit
some water districts.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lisa Cash
Driskill. The estimate was 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.