[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2198-E2199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN COMPACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. GEORGE W. GEKAS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 4, 1997

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to unanimous consent granted on 
November 4, 1997 during debate on House Joint Resolution 91, I 
introduce the report on that joint resolution from the Congressional 
Budget Office which was not available at the time of the filing of the 
committee report:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1997.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 91, a joint 
     resolution granting the consent of Congress to the 
     Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Gary Brown, 
     who can be reached at 226-2860.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.
       Enclosure


               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE


                                SUMMARY

       H.J. Res. 91 would grant congressional consent to the 
     Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin) 
     Compact. The compact would establish the ACF Basin 
     Commission, which would determine an allocation formula for 
     apportioning the surface waters of the ACF basin among the 
     states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The commission would 
     consist of state and federal representatives.
       Provisions in the compact that could have an impact on the 
     federal budget include: an authorization of appropriations 
     for a federal commissioner to attend meetings of the 
     commission and for employment of personnel by the 
     commissioner, an authorization for federal agencies to 
     conduct studies and monitoring programs in cooperation with 
     the commission, and a requirement that the federal government 
     comply with the water allocation formula once it has been 
     adopted by the commission (to the extent that doing so would 
     not conflict with other federal laws).
       CBO estimates that enacting H.J. Res. 91 would result in 
     new discretionary spending of less than $500,000 in fiscal 
     year 1998, and about $12 million over the 1982-2002 period, 
     assuming appropriations consistent with its provisions. The 
     compact also would increase direct spending; hence, pay-as-
     you-go procedures would apply to the legislation. But CBO 
     estimates that enacting H.J. Res. 91 would increase direct 
     spending by less than $500,000 a year, beginning in fiscal 
     year 1999.
       The resolution does not contain any intergovernmental or 
     private-sector mandates as

[[Page E2199]]

     defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
     and any costs resulting from the compact would be borne 
     voluntarily by Alabama, Florida, and Georgia as a result of 
     the agreement.


                ESTIMATED COST OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

       Implementing H.J. Res. 91 would effect both spending 
     subject to appropriation and direct spending. CBO estimates 
     that enacting H.J. Res. 91 would result in new spending 
     subject to appropriation of less than $500,000 in 1998, about 
     $4 million in 1999, $3 million in 2000, and $2 million a year 
     thereafter. CBO estimates that the compact would increase 
     direct spending, beginning in 1999, by reducing offsetting 
     receipts from recreation fees and federal hydropower 
     operations, but any such changes would likely be 
     insignificant. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). The 
     estimated budgetary effects of H.J. Res. 91 are shown in the 
     following table.

                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1998   1999   2000   2001   2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   Spending subject to appropriation--
Spending Under Current Law:
    Estimated Authorization Level1...     31     31     31     31     31
    Estimated Outlays................     32     32     31     31     31
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level....    (2)      4      3      2      2
    Estimated Outlays................    (2)      4      3      2      2
Spending Under H.J. Res. 91:
    Estimated Authorization Level1...     31     35     34     33     33
    Estimated Outlays................     32     36     34     33     33
 
                      Changes in direct spending--
    Estimated Budget Authority.......      0    (2)    (2)    (2)    (2)
    Estimated Outlays................      0    (2)    (2)    (2)    (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1The 1998 level is the amount appropriated in that year for programs
  conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the ACF basin. The
  amounts shown for subsequent years reflect assumed continuation of the
  current-year funding level, without adjustment for inflation.
  Alternatively, if funding were increased to cover anticipated
  inflation, funding under current law would gradually grow from $31
  million in 1998 to $35 million in 2002.
2Less than $500,000.

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

     Spending Subject to Appropriation
       For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that (1) the 
     compact is approved in the next few months, (2) a commission 
     is formed in 1998, (3) all amounts estimated to be authorized 
     by the legislation will be appropriated, and (4) a new plan 
     for allocating water among the states will be approved in 
     fiscal year 1999. New discretionary spending would be 
     necessary for expenses of a federal commissioner to 
     participate in the ACF commission, for conducting studies and 
     monitoring activities in coordination with the commission, 
     and for operating federal facilities in the river basin in a 
     manner consistent with the new allocation plan.
     Federal Commissioner.
       CBO estimates that the cost of sending the federal 
     commissioner to meetings of the commission and of funding a 
     personal staff with be less than $500,000 a year beginning in 
     1998. The commissioner would serve without compensation. 
     General expenses of the commission would be paid by the 
     states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
     Studies and Monitoring.
       CBO estimates that the compact would result in new spending 
     subject to appropriation of about $2 million in fiscal year 
     1999 and about $1 million in 2000 for completing an 
     environmental impact statement of options for allocating 
     water in the ACF basin, for developing a plan for monitoring 
     water levels and quality in the basin, and for conducting 
     additional studies. Additional spending of less than $500,000 
     a year beginning in 2000 would occur for implementing, 
     operating, and maintaining programs and equipment for 
     monitoring the basin.
       Beginning in 1991, the Congress has appropriated to the 
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) an average of almost 
     $2 million a year--about $13 million in total--for studying 
     the long-term needs for water and availability of water 
     resources in the ACF and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapossa (ACT) 
     basins. An additional $5 million was provided to the Corps in 
     1997 for conducting a preliminary environmental impact 
     statement regarding options for allocating water in the ACF 
     and ACT basins.
     Federal Facilities.
       Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that 
     operating federal facilities in the ACF basin in a manner 
     that complies with a new water allocation plan may result in 
     additional discretionary spending of about $2 million a year, 
     beginning in 1999. We expect that these annual cost could 
     range from near zero to $4 million a year, depending on 
     whether a new allocation plan is adopted and whether it 
     results in a significant change in water use in the river 
     basin.
       Most of the expense of implementing a new water allocation 
     plan would be for operating and maintaining channels for 
     navigation because the cost of that activity is highly 
     dependent on water flows. Under current law, CBO estimates 
     that the Corps will spend about $14 million in 1998 for 
     navigation-related activities in the ACF basin. CBO 
     anticipates that the cost of other major activities in the 
     basin would not change significantly as a result of the 
     compact. The cost of operating and maintaining hydropower 
     facilities is not likely to change significantly as a result 
     of minor changes in water flows. Moreover, any major flood 
     control activities in the basin would likely require further 
     authorization by Congress.
     Direct Spending
       CBO anticipates that the compact would have an impact on 
     direct spending by reducing the amount of receipts returned 
     to the Treasury from recreation facilities operated by the 
     Corps and the Department of the Interior in the ACF basin. A 
     new water allocation plan could affect receipts from 
     recreation areas by directly or indirectly changing water 
     levels at lakes and other recreation areas so that their use 
     if reduced. This type of impact would be most likely in years 
     when total water supplies were already low, for example, 
     because of below-average rainfall. CBO estimates that the 
     impact on receipts from recreation elements would be less 
     than $500,000 annually, beginning in 1999.
       The compact could also affect receipts from hydropower 
     operations, but CBO estimates that the net impact on 
     hydropower revenues from any likely water allocation plan 
     would be insignificant. A new plan could affect power 
     operations by limiting the amount of water that can flow 
     through federal power-generating facilities. This could 
     affect the amount of power that can be produced and sold. 
     However, CBO estimates that any impact on hydropower receipts 
     is likely to be significant because federal law requires 
     that, to the extent market conditions permit, hydropower 
     operations cover expenses. In the case of limits on power 
     production, the price could be increased to offset any 
     reduction in the quantity of power produced and sold.


                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 specifies pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation 
     affecting direct spending or receipts. CBO estimates that 
     enacting H.J. Res. 91 would increase direct spending by less 
     than $500,000 a year, beginning in 1999. Enacting the 
     legislation would not affect governmental receipts.


              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

       H.J. Res. 91 would give the consent of the Congress to an 
     agreement mutually entered into by three states, Alabama, 
     Florida, and Georgia. The resolution contains no 
     intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and any costs to 
     the states resulting from the compact would be borne 
     voluntarily as a result of the agreement.
       Estimated prepared by: Federal costs, Gary Brown, impact on 
     State, local, and tribal governments, Leo Lex.
       Estimated approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

     

                          ____________________