[Senate Report 110-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 52
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-26
======================================================================
SOUTHERN IDAHO BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPAYMENT ACT OF 2007
_______
February 16, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 220]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 220) to authorize early repayment of
obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of S. 220 is to authorize early repayment of
obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Pursuant to section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982 (13 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.), prepayment of reimbursable
construction costs associated with a Reclamation project is
prohibited unless the repayment contract between the District
and the United States allowed for prepayment of the contract at
the time the Reclamation Reform Act was enacted. While many
construction cost repayment contracts associated with the
Minidoka Project had provisions providing for early repayment,
the contract associated with the A&B Irrigation District did
not. Additionally, the District is the only irrigation district
in the Minidoka Project subject to acreage limitations under
Federal reclamation law. S. 220 will provide consistency
between landowners within the A&B Irrigation District and those
within other districts served by the Minidoka Project.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 220 was introduced by Senator Craig on January 9, 2007
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
At its business meeting on January 31, 2007, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 220 favorably reported.
During the 109th Congress, the Committee considered similar
legislation, S. 2470, introduced by Senator Craig on March 29,
2006. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S.
2470 on June 28, 2006 (S. Hrg. 109-677). No further action on
S. 2470 occurred prior to the sine die adjournment of the 109th
Congress. A companion measure, H.R. 5666, was considered by the
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules, and
passed by a voice vote on December 5, 2006.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an
open business meeting on January 31, 2007, by voice vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 220.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides the short title.
Section 2(a) authorizes land owners within the A&B
Irrigation District to prepay, at any time, construction costs
allocable to that landowner.
Section 2(b) declares that upon full repayment of the
construction costs allocable to all lands that a landowner owns
within the District, that those lands will not be subject to
the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under Federal
reclamation law.
Section 2(c) provides that upon the request of a landowner
that has fully repaid the construction costs allocable to that
landowner, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide a
certificate described in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation
Reform Act of 1982.
Section 2(d) declares that nothing in the Act modifies any
contractual rights under, or amends or reopens, the existing
reclamation contract between the District and the United
States. Furthermore, nothing modifies any rights, obligations,
or relationships between the A&B District and the landowners in
the District under state law.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of
this measure has been requested but was not received at the
time the report was filed. When the Congressional Budget Office
completes its cost estimate, it will be posted on the Internet
at www.cbo.gov.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 220. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant responsibilities on private individuals and
business.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 220.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION
Because S. 220 is similar to legislation considered in the
109th Congress, the Committee did not request Executive Agency
Views. The testimony provided by the Bureau of Reclamation at
the Subcommittee hearing on S. 2470 in the 109th Congress
follows:
Statement of William E. Rinne, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill
Rinne, Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide the Administration's views
on S. 2470, the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment
Act. The bill, which we support with some modifications, would
authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation District of Idaho.
The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the
Minidoka Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation
provisions of Federal reclamation law. Under section 213 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), early repayment of a
district's construction costs is prohibited unless the
district's repayment contract with Reclamation included a
provision allowing for early repayment when the RRA was
enacted.
At one time, over 50 districts in the Minidoka Project were
subject to the acreage limitation provisions and many of those
districts had an early repayment provision in their contracts.
In order to provide consistency for the landowners in the
remaining district, we support S. 2470's approach to allow
early repayment in A&B Irrigation District. However, we
recommend that the bill be amended in order to ensure
consistency for all landowners within the project.
In general, early repayment authority in contracts is
limited to landowners. In other words, a district cannot pay
out early; rather, each landowner can decide if his or her land
should be paid out early. It is Reclamation policy to require
landowners who want to pay early to pay out all of their land
in the subject district and not just a portion of their land.
This concept was included in the recently enacted ``Southern
Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2005,'' which
provided early payout authority for two districts in Oregon
(Public Law 109-38).
As currently written, S. 2470 can be interpreted to provide
the opportunity for landowners to pay out either all of their
land in A&B Irrigation District or a portion of that land. The
latter is a benefit that other landowners who are subject to
the acreage limitation provisions simply do not enjoy and would
inject inconsistency into the administration of the acreage
limitation provisions. Early payout would accelerate the
repayment of these project costs to the United States Treasury.
Where these repayment obligations are not accompanied by
interest, early repayment has a net positive impact on overall
repayment to the Treasury and we are highly confident that this
will be the case under this bill. However, we should note that
a small number of landowners hold in excess of 960 acres and
therefore pay full cost. Since full cost has an interest
component, if these landowners opt to pay out early, this could
result in slightly lower repayment from those landowners.
We believe our concerns can be addressed with a simple
revision to S. 2470 and we stand ready to provide revised
language. This concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 220, as ordered
reported.