[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8067-H8069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CANADIAN RIVER RECLAMATION PROJECT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2007) to amend the Act that authorized the Canadian River
reclamation project, Texas, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
allow use of the project distribution system to transport water from
sources other that the project, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2007
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF CANADIAN RIVER
RECLAMATION PROJECT, TEXAS, TO TRANSPORT
NONPROJECT WATER.
The Act of December 29, 1950 (chapter 1183; 43 U.S.C. 600b,
600c), authorizing construction, operation, and maintenance
of the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas, is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall allow use
of the project distribution system (including all pipelines,
aqueducts, pumping plants, and related facilities) for
transport of water from the Canadian River Conjunctive Use
Groundwater Project to municipalities that are receiving
water from the project. Such use shall be subject only to
such environmental review as is required under the Memorandum
of Understanding,
[[Page H8068]]
No. 97-AG-60-09340, between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, and a review and
approval of the engineering design of the interconnection
facilities to assure the continued integrity of the project.
Such environmental review shall be completed within 90 days
after the date of enactment of this section.
``(b) The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority shall
bear the responsibility for all costs of construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Canadian River Conjunctive
Use Groundwater Project, and for costs incurred by the
Secretary in conducting the environmental review of the
project. The Secretary shall not assess any additional
charges in connection with the Canadian River Conjunctive Use
Groundwater Project.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Thornberry] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr],
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2007. This bill directs the Secretary of
the Interior to allow the use of the Bureau of Reclamation facilities
in Texas for the transport of water from the proposed Canadian River
conjunctive use ground-water project to municipalities receiving water
from the existing reclamation project.
This additional water is needed because the yield of the
Reclamation's Canadian River project is less than originally
anticipated and because of ongoing water quality problems associated
with the Federal project.
The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has a proposal to
construct this ground-water project in order to supplement project
water supplies with better quality ground water. The proposed ground-
water project will not require Federal funding. It would be
interconnected with the existing Canadian River project facilities in
order for the ground water to be mixed with project water and
distributed throughout the existing conveyance system.
This legislation is needed because questions have been raised about
the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow the interconnection
of the non-Federal ground-water project with the Federal Canadian River
project facilities. This bill will also ensure that the environmental
review of the interconnection facilities is completed in a timely
manner.
H.R. 2007 further stipulates that all of the costs for construction,
operation, and maintenance of the ground-water project are the
responsibility of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. This
bill goes a long way to resolving at no cost to the Federal Government
the water quality and water supply issues facing 11 cities in the High
Plains area of Texas, including Lubbock and Amarillo. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 2007.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the authorization for the Canadian
River project in Texas. I think while the project underlying this bill
represents a worthwhile effort to improve water quality for several
communities in the High Plains of Texas, the bill itself is entirely
unnecessary.
The bill would grant the local water authority the right to use
excess capacity of the Bureau of Reclamation facilities to manage non-
Federal ground water through the Canadian River Authority's conjunctive
use ground-water project. That project would make necessary
improvements to the urban water quality. However, the project is
already going forward under existing authorization for the Canadian
River project.
The Bureau of Reclamation has entered memorandums of understanding
with the Canadian River Authority and has begun environmental review of
the project. The Bureau can incorporate the ground-water conjunctive
use project within the existing project's authority. There is simply no
need for this bill. It is not only unnecessary but the big problem is,
it would constrain the Bureau of Reclamation's review of the ground-
water project under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The administration has expressed continuing concerns regarding the
bill's potential to override NEPA. Yet the bill proponents have been
unwilling to remove the NEPA language from the bill.
I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Doolittle], for the work his staff has put into
improving the language of this bill. The bill now provides the Bureau
of Reclamation to approve the engineering designs in order to avoid
potential problems with the system. It also includes language to ensure
the local water district that it pay for the expenses associated with
the project. However, as long as the override of the NEPA policy act is
in the bill, I must oppose the legislation as unnecessary and
inappropriate.
{time} 1300
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is helpful for someone who has been involved
in this project from the beginning to give a brief review of some of
the difficulties that has made this legislation necessary.
As a matter of fact, there have been 88 changes to the project over
time, none of which have caused any sort of question to arise from the
Bureau of Reclamation as for the authority to tie in privately financed
changes into the existing project. And this project itself has been on
the drawing books for at least 5 years. The Bureau knew about it every
step of the way, and yet not until February of this year did they raise
any questions about it.
I will make part of the Record some of the letters that the Municipal
Water Authority has received from the Bureau questioning whether the
Bureau has even the authority to allow this project to go forward.
As a matter of fact, I will quote briefly from a February 21, 1997,
letter signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison, area manager, that
says:
The implementation of the current proposal to convey
groundwater via the pipeline project would require new or
amendatory legislative authority.
Of course, then they study it a little bit more; and on April 1997
they write back, I will put the full letter in the Record, but
basically they believe, well, maybe we find that we do have the
authority after all.
The point of that is that there is at least some question, at least
with some people in the Bureau, about whether there is the legislative
authority to allow this privately financed, independently-obtained
groundwater supply and mix it with the current supplies.
H.R. 2007 has been amended. It requires an environmental review. That
environmental review is going to be paid for by the water district
itself, not by the Federal Government. We have bent over backward to
make sure that all of the provisions of this measure are consistent
with the intent of this Congress, but also that there are not
unnecessary bureaucratic delays because of some confusion as far as the
legislative authority by the Bureau of Reclamation.
That is why this legislation exists. We have worked in a bipartisan
way with Members on the other side of the aisle to come up with this
language, and I believe it makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues what the problem is,
as expressed in a letter from the Secretary of Interior, the Assistant
for Water and Science, Patricia Beneke. In that letter to the chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], she
points out that
The intent of referencing the MOU seems to be to limit the
scope of required environmental review, because the MOU
itself is expressly limited to preparation and finalization
of an environmental assessment.
And she goes on to say,
While the MOU itself does not preclude a full environmental
impact statement, as
[[Page H8069]]
well as full compliance with other environmental laws, its
reference in the legislation, its incorporation in the
legislation, could be construed as a limitation on the scope
of the environmental review. This part of the bill thus
arguably legislatively prejudges that the project will pose
no significant impacts and that an environmental assessment
fulfills our NEPA requirement.
Similarly,
in another part of the bill,
the bill would mandate that any environmental review be
completed within 90 days after the date of enactment. This
too prejudices the project that the project will not require
a full environmental impact statement. Moreover, a portion of
the work is being conducted by the Authority's contractor,
and Reclamation has no control over the quality or timing of
the contractor's project.
So there are, essentially, two concerns that the administration is
raising about this bill which I bring to the House, which seems to me
could be addressed by appropriate amendments. Those amendments have not
come forth, and so at this point we object to the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at
this point, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time until the
time on the other side is yielded back.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I include the following two letters for
the Record:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Great Plains Region, Austin Reclamation Office,
Austin, TX, April 10, 1997.
Mr. John Williams, P.E.
General Manager, Canadian River Municipal Water Authority,
Sanford, TX.
Subject: Use of Project Conveyance Facilities--Canadian River
Project, Texas.
Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reference to our letter dated
February 21, 1997, concerning the augmentation of existing
Canadian River Project (Project) water supplies with
groundwater from wells located east of the Project. As
explained in the letter, our preliminary evaluation indicated
the lack of general authority to allow the use of reclamation
project facilities for storing or conveying non-project
water, and that such use of project facilities would require
new or amendatory legislation.
A more comprehensive review of Reclamation laws has
revealed existing statutes which provide sufficient authority
to allow the incorporation of the proposed ground water
project's facilities and water into the Canadian River
Project. This can be accomplished administratively without
further legislative action, but would require review,
approval and compliance under existing processes and
regulatory laws, including the National Environmental Policy
Act.
If you would like to pursue the option outlined above, we
recommend that a meeting be scheduled to discuss the
administrative process required for incorporating the ground
water project into existing facilities.
If you have any questions, or need any additional
information, please contact me or Mike Martin of this office
at telephone No. (512) 916-5641.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison,
Area Manager.
____
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Great Plains Region, Oklahoma-Texas Area Office,
Oklahoma City, OK, February 21, 1997.
Mr. John Williams, P.E.,
General Manager, Canadian River Municipal Water Authority,
Sanford, TX.
Subject: Use of Project Facilities for Conveyance of Non-
Project Water, Canadian River Project, Texas.
Dear Mr. Williams: This follow up letter is in reference to
our meeting at your office on January 22, 1997, during which
we discussed various matters concerning the Canadian River
Project. Among the issues covered were the transfer of title
to project aqueduct facilities, project financial concerns,
and the augmentation of existing project water supplies with
groundwater from wells located in Hutchinson County, Texas.
The need for compliance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable statutes
for title transfer and modification of a Federal project was
also addressed.
We have reviewed existing laws relating to the use of
Reclamation projects for storing or conveying non-project
water (water from outside the originally authorized project).
Based on this preliminary evaluation, it appears that the
authority for allowing such use of project facilities is
limited solely to water for irrigation purposes. Presently,
we are without adequate authority to allow the use of
Canadian River Project facilities for the storage or
conveyance of non-project water for municipal and industrial
purposes. Accordingly, the implementation of the current
proposal to convey groundwater via the project pipeline would
require new or amendatory legislative authority.
If you have any questions, or need any additional
information, please contact me or Mike Martin at (512) 916-
5641.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison,
Area Manager.
Mr. Speaker, the final comment I would make is that there has been no
suggestion by any party, anyone associated, that there is any
environmental problem or potential problem associated here; and that is
one of the reasons that I think the negotiations are currently going at
a rapid pace.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2007, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 2007, the bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry]?
There was no objection.
____________________