[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 170 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7419-H7420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS IN PROVO RIVER PROJECT
TRANSFER ACT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 255) to amend certain definitions contained in the Provo
River Project Transfer Act for purposes of clarifying certain property
descriptions, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 255
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS IN PROVO
RIVER PROJECT TRANSFER ACT.
(a) Pleasant Grove Property.--Section 2(4)(A) of the Provo
River Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382; 118 Stat.
2212) is amended by striking ``of enactment of this Act'' and
inserting ``on which the parcel is conveyed under section
3(a)(2)''.
(b) Provo Reservoir Canal.--Section 2(5) of the Provo River
Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382; 118 Stat. 2212) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``canal, and any associated land, rights-
of-way, and facilities'' and inserting ``water conveyance
facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal and
all associated bridges, fixtures, structures, facilities,
lands, interests in land, and rights-of-way held,'';
(2) by inserting ``and forebay'' after ``Diversion Dam'';
(3) by inserting ``near the Jordan Narrows to the point
where water is discharged to the Welby-Jacob Canal and the
Utah Lake Distributing Canal'' after ``Penstock''; and
(4) by striking ``of enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``on which the Provo Reservoir Canal is conveyed under
section 3(a)(1)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
[[Page H7420]]
General Leave
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 255, sponsored by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz), allows the Provo River Waters Users Association to own a
canal facility that it has operated, maintained, and repaid for
decades. This title transfer was the original intent of public law
enacted in 2004, and the passage of this bill would remove existing
legal barriers in order to fulfill that intent. A companion measure by
Senator Hatch passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
in May.
The whole matter comes down to this: the canal was originally an
open, earthen canal in a rural setting. The city of Provo grew up
around it until, for a variety of reasons, it was decided to enclose
the canal, essentially changing it to a pipeline. In order to make it
possible for the local water authority to raise non-Federal capital to
do so, Congress adopted the Provo River Transfer Act in 2004 to
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to convey title to the association
for the canal as if existed when the act was adopted.
Now that the enclosure is completed and the time has come to transfer
title--as Congress directed nearly a decade ago--the Bureau of
Reclamation has opined that by covering the canal, it technically is no
longer a canal but rather a piped facility, that it is now different
than the facility in existence when Congress ordered the transfer of
title. Therefore, it doesn't meet the specifications of the conveyance
act.
So, in an only in Washington, D.C., moment, we now have this measure
before us that changes the facility description in the 2004 act to the
``water conveyance facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir
Canal,'' so that the title transfer can proceed.
The passage of this bill would amend outdated legal definitions while
accelerating repayment to the U.S. Treasury. This legislation continues
the positive trend demonstrated by the Natural Resources Committee of
economically empowering our communities.
The Bureau of Reclamation supports the bill. I am unaware of any
opposition, and I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 255 is a technical correction for the Provo River
Transfer Act. This change will allow for the title transfer of the
Provo River Canal to the Provo River Water Users Association. The
administration supports the legislation, and we do not oppose the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the author of
the measure.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank both sides of the
aisle. I want to thank Mr. McClintock, the chairman of this
subcommittee, for allowing us to move this forward, and I appreciate
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the
committee, for allowing this to pass.
This is truly a technical change. It strikes the term ``canal'' and
replaces it with ``water conveyance facility historically known as the
Provo Reservoir Canal.'' The final payment to the Federal Government of
$700,000 will be completed once this bill becomes law. It scores
positively. It is truly a technical change.
I appreciate the indulgence of the Congress on both sides of the
aisle for making this happen, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 255.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________