[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.

                          ____________________