[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 5 (Thursday, January 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S143-S144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. Harris):
  S. 93. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain land and facilities of the Central Valley Project; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and 
safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for 
the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of 
the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in 
cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark 
DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson are introducing a House 
companion measure today as well.
  I will be brief in explaining the reasons I support the bill, which I 
introduced with Senator Harris. The bill would transfer title to the 
Contra Costa Canal from the United States to Contra Costa Water 
District (``District''). The District has fully paid off

[[Page S144]]

the capital debt for constructing the canal, so it is financially 
reasonable to transfer the 48-mile long canal to it. There is no known 
opposition to the bill, and several good reasons to support it.
  The District would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to 
a closed pipe at an estimated cost to the district ratepayers of $650 
million. The District understandably wants to take title to the 
facilities to have collateral for issuing bonds to cover the expense of 
the conversion.
  There are a number of good reasons to convert the existing canal to a 
pipe:
  First, 82 people have drowned in the earthen canal despite protective 
fencing in the 70 years since the Canal began operation. This is about 
a death per year on average, which would be completely prevented if the 
canal were converted into a pipe. Tragically, there was another 
drowning in the canal just last year.
  A second reason is water conservation. Drought is always an issue in 
California, and water is becoming more and more expensive. About 6% of 
the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A pipeline 
would eliminate these losses.
  A third reason is avoiding flood risk from the earthen canal. When 
the canal was built 70 years ago, much of the surrounding land was 
farming country, but more recently homes have been built around it. 
These homes are at risk from the types of floods that earthen canals 
periodically experience.
  Finally, the 70-year old canal is nearing the end of its lifespan and 
needs a major facility upgrade or replacement. Replacement with a 
pipeline is the best option, for all the reasons set forth above.
  Besides the advantages of the bill, there is no known opposition to 
it. The District has reached an MOU with East Bay Regional Parks 
District to continue the existing recreational uses of the adjoining 
parks it manages. In addition, the District has received letters of 
concurrence from the City Managers of Walnut Creek and Antioch 
regarding the smaller parks managed by the cities along the route of 
the existing canal. Like East Bay Regional Parks, these cities agree 
the bill would preserve the existing recreational uses of the adjoining 
lands.
  The bill would not just transfer title to Contra Costa Canal, but 
would also authorize the transfer of the Rock Slough intake and fish 
screen, one of Contra Costa's diversion points from the Delta. This 
transfer will not affect the applicability of the various biological 
opinions that apply to the facility. As I understand it, because the 
bill will not affect the environmental management of the canal, and 
because the District has paid off its capital debt, the environmental 
groups NRDC and the Defenders of Wildlife will not oppose the bill.
  In summary, this bill has no known opposition and good reasons to 
support. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank 
you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Rounds):
  S. 100. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
certain National Forest System land to Custer County, South Dakota; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 100

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Custer County Airport 
     Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Custer County, South 
     Dakota.
       (2) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     approximately 65.7 acres of National Forest System land, as 
     generally depicted on the map.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Custer 
     County Airport Conveyance'' and dated October 19, 2017.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 
     Service.

     SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the terms and conditions 
     described in subsection (b), if the County submits to the 
     Secretary an offer to acquire the Federal land for the market 
     value, as determined by the appraisal under subsection (c), 
     the Secretary shall convey the Federal land to the County.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection 
     (a) shall be--
       (1) subject to valid existing rights;
       (2) made by quitclaim deed; and
       (3) subject to any other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.
       (c) Appraisal.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete an 
     appraisal to determine the market value of the Federal land.
       (2) Standards.--The appraisal under paragraph (1) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with--
       (A) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions; and
       (B) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (d) Map.--
       (1) Availability of map.--The map shall be kept on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate office of 
     the Forest Service.
       (2) Correction of errors.--The Secretary may correct any 
     errors in the map.
       (e) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the County shall pay to the Secretary 
     an amount equal to the market value of the Federal land, as 
     determined by the appraisal under subsection (c).
       (f) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     Federal land to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be 
     determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (g) Costs of Conveyance.--As a condition on the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the County shall pay to the Secretary 
     all costs associated with the conveyance, including the cost 
     of--
       (1) the appraisal under subsection (c); and
       (2) the survey under subsection (f).
       (h) Proceeds From the Sale of Land.--Any proceeds received 
     by the Secretary from the conveyance under subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       (1) deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-
     171 (commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a); 
     and
       (2) available to the Secretary until expended, without 
     further appropriation, for the acquisition of inholdings in 
     units of the National Forest System in the State of South 
     Dakota.

                          ____________________