[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26828-26829]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 26828]]

             PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the


bill (H.R. 970) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., for the 
construction of water supply facilities in Perkins County, South 
Dakota, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 970

       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 ``Perkins County Rural Water 
     System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature authorized 
     and directed the State Water Commission to conduct the 
     Southwest Area Water Supply Study, which included water 
     service to a portion of Perkins County, South Dakota;
       (2) amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit 
     Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the 
     Southwest Pipeline project as an eligible project for Federal 
     cost share participation; and
       (3) the Perkins County Rural Water System has continued to 
     be recognized by the State of North Dakota, the Southwest 
     Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Commission, the 
     Department of the Interior, and Congress as a component of 
     the Southwest Pipeline Project.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Corporation.--The term ``Corporation'' means the 
     Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit 
     corporation established and operated under the laws of the 
     State of South Dakota substantially in accordance with the 
     feasibility study.
       (2) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means the study entitled ``Feasibility Study for Rural Water 
     System for Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.'', as 
     amended in March 1995.
       (3) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
     construction budget'' means the description of the total 
     amount of funds that are needed for the construction of the 
     water supply system, as described in the feasibility study.
       (4) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
     term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' 
     means all power requirements that are incidental to the 
     operation of the water supply system by the Corporation.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation.
       (6) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means intake facilities, pumping stations, water treatment 
     facilities, cooling facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines 
     operated by the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., to 
     the point of delivery of water to each entity that 
     distributes water at retail to individual users.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     Corporation for the Federal share of the costs of--
       (1) the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system; and
       (2) repairs to existing public water distribution systems 
     to ensure conservation of the resources and to make the 
     systems functional under the new water supply system.
       (b) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of 
     the water supply system until--
       (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met with respect to 
     the water supply system; and
       (2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water 
     conservation program have been prepared and submitted to 
     Congress for a period of not less than 90 days before the 
     commencement of construction of the system.

     SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result 
     of the construction and operation of the water supply system 
     shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological 
     equivalency, concurrent with project construction, as 
     provided in the feasibility study.

     SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

       For operation during the period beginning May 1 and ending 
     October 31 of each year, portions of the water supply system 
     constructed with assistance under this Act shall be eligible 
     to utilize power from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program 
     established by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 
     (Chapter 665; 58 Stat. 887), popularly known as the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944.

     SEC. 7. FEDERAL SHARE.

       The Federal share under section 4 shall be 75 percent of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 8. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

       The non-Federal share under section 4 shall be 25 percent 
     of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 9. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Authorization.--At the request of the Corporation, the 
     Secretary may provide to the Corporation assistance in 
     overseeing matters relating to construction of the water 
     supply system.
       (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds 
     used by the Secretary for planning and construction of the 
     water supply system may not exceed an amount equal to 3 
     percent of the amount provided in the total project 
     construction budget for the portion of the project to be 
     constructed in Perkins County, South Dakota.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
       (1) $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the 
     water supply system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Perkins County is located in northwest South Dakota on 
the border with North Dakota. Like many areas in the high plains, there 
are insufficient water supplies, and much of what is available does not 
meet minimum health and safety standards.
  In the early 1930s, South Dakota and Perkins County funded a water 
supply feasibility study which was completed in 1994. The study 
concluded that obtaining water from the Southwest Water Authority, a 
nearby water system located in North Dakota, was the most feasible 
option, and that the necessary water supply system would cost 
approximately $20 million. This bill provides for a 75/25 Federal-local 
cost share, with a total authorization of $15 million for the water 
supply project costs.
  A similar bill passed the House and Senate last year, but due to time 
constraints was never sent to the President for signature. This bill 
simplifies the Pick-Sloan power provision of the previous bill, and 
makes power available to the project at the firm power rate schedule of 
the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division, within the Western Power 
Administration, rather than at pumping power rates. This is more 
equitable to other power users, and consistent with other municipal and 
industrial water projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 970. Similar legislation was 
passed by both the House and Senate in the 105th Congress.
  The committee has received extensive testimony regarding the poor 
quality of domestic water supplies in this area. Farmsteads in this 
part of South Dakota are often miles apart, and residents must depend 
on wells that produce water with high levels of sodium.
  Engineering studies have shown that centralized treatment facilities 
using groundwater would not be cost-effective. It makes much more sense 
to assist Perkins County residents by allowing them to hook up to the 
Southwest Pipeline project, a rural water supply now under construction 
just over the border in North Dakota.
  I congratulate the Chair and the ranking member, and I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 970.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the author of this legislation.

[[Page 26829]]


  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak in favor of H.R. 970, the Perkins 
County Rural Water System Act of 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and winding road that this important 
project has taken to get to this point today. I am extremely pleased 
that we are nearing the point of enactment.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Resources, as well as the 
ranking members, the gentlemen from California, Mr. Miller and Mr. 
Dooley, for their assistance and cooperation in helping advance this 
bill. Their leadership and cooperation throughout this process have 
been very instrumental and will continue to be instrumental as we work 
with the other body to see that this bill becomes law.
  The reason I say H.R. 970 has been on a legislative journey of sorts 
is because this body in the last session of Congress passed a measure 
similar to H.R. 970, and in the waning days of the 105th Congress, a 
bill very similar to the one before us today met the approval of the 
full House.
  However, when considered by the other body, the bill was amended and 
differences between the two bodies could not be settled. As a result, I 
reintroduced this legislation, and I hope the House will see fit to 
approve it today.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide the authorization that is 
necessary for the Perkins County rural water system to qualify for 
Federal assistance for construction. When completed, the system will 
provide water to over 3,500 people in an area covering 2,866 square 
miles.
  In order to give my colleagues in the House some perspective of that 
area, that area is larger than either the State of Delaware or Rhode 
Island. But unlike either of these two States, this area of South 
Dakota lacks this very important lifeline resource of water.
  Not unlike some other areas of South Dakota, Perkins County 
frequently experiences problems in terms of quality and quantity of 
water. The present water supply all too frequently fails to meet 
Environmental Protection Agency standards for total dissolved solids 
and sulfates. In addition, the sodium and fluoride levels have 
surpassed acceptable limits. While water clearly is a factor in the 
quality of life, it is also a factor of good health.
  The people of Perkins County have waited for some time to address 
these concerns. In fact, the project's origins date back to 1982, when 
sponsors of the Southwest Pipeline project in North Dakota contacted a 
group of farmers and ranchers in Perkins County to gauge their interest 
in receiving water from a better, healthier source. While interest was 
there, the Southwest Pipeline project did not develop to the point that 
it could have been included in engineering design until 1992.
  However, the Southwest Pipeline authorization does not explicitly 
authorize construction of the Perkins County rural water system. 
Despite this strong historical connection, there still was not the 
legal authority necessary for the system, which is why I am on the 
floor of the House today.
  The legislation before us now would help address a vital need to any 
and every community: that is, water suitable for human consumption. 
Many areas of this Nation are blessed with vast quantities of quality 
drinking water. It is a resource that helps ensure growth and 
prosperity. Other areas, like Perkins County, South Dakota, however, 
suffer from lack of access to a dependable water supply.
  Though this may be a sparsely populated area of this Nation, the 
communities in Perkins County such as Bison, Lemmon, and Prairie City, 
all are important to supporting the social fabric of the magnificent 
rangeland that surrounds. Likewise, there is potential for growth, but 
only if the basic resources are in place.
  H.R. 970 would help this region continue to thrive into the next 
century. The bill also will allow us to move past simply examining the 
symptoms of poor drinking water and move forward with the cure to the 
deficiencies in the current water supply.
  On behalf of the residents of Perkins County, South Dakota, I ask all 
the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation 
today. Again, I thank the leadership of this committee for moving this 
bill forward.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
urge an aye vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 970, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________