[House Report 104-132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-132
_______________________________________________________________________


 
COLORADO RIVER BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM UPSTREAM OF IMPERIAL 
                                  DAM

                                _______


  June 7, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 523]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the Act 
(S. 523) to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 
to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of 
salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the Act 
do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of S. 523 is to amend the Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry 
out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-
effective manner.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Colorado River is the lifeline of the Southwest. The 
River extends for 1,450 miles, originating in the States of 
Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, and ending in Mexico, where the 
River empties into the Gulf of California. The River drains 
approximately one-twelfth of the land area of the contiguous 
United States, providing a key water supply to an otherwise 
largely arid region.
    Salinity in the Colorado River increases dramatically as 
the River makes its way along its 1,400-mile journey. Almost 
half of the salinity is caused by nature when groundwater flows 
through salt formations and enters the River or when saline 
springs contribute salt to the River or its tributaries. 
Another major contributor to the River's salinity is the use of 
water for agriculture. Diversions reduce the volume of water 
available, thereby raising its salinity concentration, and 
return flows from agricultural lands pick up salt from the 
soil. Public domain lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) also contribute an estimated 700,000 
tons of salt annually, and in 1984 Congress directed the BLM to 
take actions to reduce salinity from BLM lands. The Bureau of 
Reclamation estimates that salinity in the Colorado River 
corrodes water pipes and damages crops at an annual cost of 
about $1 billion.
    Consumptive use of Colorado River water in the United 
States and Mexico now totals approximately 13 million acre-feet 
of water annually. The River provides irrigation water to 
almost 2 million acres of land, and is a source of municipal 
and industrial water supplies to about 20 million people.
    The Colorado River Compact, negotiated in 1922 by all seven 
Basin States, divided the River into two basins (Upper Basin 
and Lower Basin), with each Basin receiving the right to 
develop and consumptively use in perpetuity 7.5 million acre-
feet of water annually from the Colorado River system (although 
all of that development has not yet occurred). Water users in 
the Lower Basin are concerned about the higher salinity of the 
Colorado River water they receive, in part because it reduces 
their ability to reclaim the water for reuse. In addition, the 
1944 U.S.-Mexican Water Treaty committed 1.5 million acre-feet 
annually to users in Mexico. Minute Number 242 of the 1944 
Treaty requires water delivered to Mexico to be of a certain 
quality. Under the Treaty, the quantity and quality of water to 
be delivered to Mexico is a Federal obligation, and the cost is 
not to be borne by the seven Basin States.
    To address the ongoing salinity problem, the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Act was enacted in 1974. Title I of the 
Act addressed the Mexican Treaty obligations by authorizing the 
Yuma Desalting Plant, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and 
Drainage District irrigation drainage reduction program, 
concrete lining of the Coachella Canal in California (allowing 
the United States to use the conserved water to replace 
drainage water bypassed to Mexico), and a well field in Arizona 
known as the Protective and Regulatory Pumping Unit. Title II 
of the Act, which S. 523 seeks to amend, authorized the 
investigation and construction of salinity control projects in 
the Upper Basin to protect the quality of water delivered to 
the Lower Basin.

                            Committee Action

    S. 523 passed the Senate on April 27, 1995, and was 
received in the House of Representatives on May 1, 1995. S. 523 
was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the 
Committee, to the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources.
    The companion House bill, H.R. 930, was introduced on 
February 14, 1995, by Congressman Hansen; the bill to date has 
11 cosponsors. On May 11, 1995, the Subcommittee on Water and 
Power Resources held a hearing on H.R. 930, where the Bureau of 
Reclamation testified in support of the legislation, but 
suggested two possible amendments which were not subsequently 
adopted by the Committee. Non-Federal witnesses also expressed 
their support for the new program authorized in H.R. 930.
    On May 24, 1995, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider S. 523, at which time the bill was discharged from the 
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources by unanimous consent. 
No amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably 
reported by voice vote to the House of Representatives, in the 
presence of a quorum.
                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    S. 523 would amend section 202(a) of the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Act to insert a new paragraph (6) that 
authorizes a program of salinity control in addition to the 
specific projects in the existing statute. The new program 
would enable the Bureau of Reclamation to accept proposals from 
non-Federal entities for salinity control measures, and then 
provide funding to the most cost-effective proposals. S. 523 
authorizes $75 million for activities authorized under 
subsection 202(a), including constructing the works described 
in the new paragraph (6).
    S. 523 mirrors the flexibility already provided the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture in 1984 for its salinity control 
program. The Committee notes that the current salinity control 
program under Title II of the 1974 law is inflexible and relies 
on expensive hardware solutions to water quality problems. S. 
523 will for the first time allow private companies and other 
organizations to participate in salinity control in the 
Colorado River Basin. Creative solutions to complex water 
management problems should be encouraged under this 
legislation.
    The bill specifies that salinity control solutions under 
this new program must meet a test of cost-effectiveness. The 
Committee has been advised by the Bureau of Reclamation that 
new guidelines for evaluating proposed salinity control 
measures will be proposed for public comment. Every effort 
should be made by the Bureau to ensure that innovative 
solutions to salinity control are encouraged. Cost-
effectiveness guidelines should not unreasonably exclude 
projects just because they do not meet traditional criteria for 
salinity control projects.
    The bill specifically provides that the Secretary may 
approve salinity control projects to reduce salinity from a 
variety of sources. The Committee expects that the Bureau of 
Reclamation's new guidelines for implementing salinity control 
measures will not unreasonably preclude innovative solutions to 
the Basin's salinity problems. If non-structural solutions to 
salinity control problems exist, they should be considered. S. 
523 should not constrain the Bureau from considering a variety 
of solutions to water quality problems in the Colorado River 
Basin.
    The bill further provides that the Secretary may directly 
involve non-Federal entities in carrying out the purposes of 
the salinity control program. In testimony before the Water and 
Power Resources Subcommittee, the Bureau of Reclamation 
testified that an amendment to the bill was needed to provide 
for the direct involvement of other Federal agencies. While the 
Committee agrees that the involvement of other Federal agencies 
may be appropriate, the Committee believes that the Bureau of 
Reclamation already has sufficient legislative authority to 
allow it to pursue the necessary interagency agreements or 
other arrangements it may need.
    The Committee notes that this new program is in addition to 
other activities by the Department of the Interior, such as 
long-term contracts undertaken with non-Federally financed 
facilities that would normally be undertaken with operation and 
maintenance appropriations. This new program is directed at 
capital improvements, not operations.
    Non-Federally financed projects as authorized by Section 
202(a) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act require 
no Federal capital construction funds. Contracts between the 
Federal Government and the owners of a non-Federally financed 
project for salinity control would meet the new requirements 
set forth in Section 202(a)(6).
    The Committee notes that an issue was raised in a submittal 
for the record from the Coachella Valley Water District 
regarding the application of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
(RRA) to actions taken under the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act.
    In 1982, the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the 
Interior issued an opinion, stating in part that ``(t)itle I 
[of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act] improvements 
are not made subject to reclamation law.'' Subsequently, a 
field solicitor's memorandum for the Lower Colorado River 
Region of the Bureau of Reclamation suggested that actions 
taken under the Salinity Control Act could be subject to the 
RRA. The Committee believes this discrepancy should be 
clarified.
    Simply stated, RRA requirements are not necessarily 
applicable to contracts entered into pursuant to the Salinity 
Control Act. The RRA requirements cover only certain water 
service and repayment contracts. The example presented by 
Coachella is not one of these types of contracts--under the 
canal lining contract with the United States, the district is 
not provided with a delivery of project irrigation water for a 
fixed or perpetual period of time, nor is the district required 
to repay to the United States a fixed charge.
    If the Department of the Interior has subjected contractors 
to RRA requirements in otherwise non-applicable contracts or 
contract amendments made under the authority of the Salinity 
Control Act, the Committee urges the Department to take prompt, 
necessary action to clarify that the RRA does not apply. As 
long as the salinity control program continues, water users and 
other entities should not be discouraged from participating in 
this important program because of the possibility of RRA 
application.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of S. 523 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.

                        Cost of the Legislation

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
S. 523. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     Compliance With House Rule XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, S. 523 
does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, 
credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of S. 523.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for S. 523 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 31, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 523, an act to amend 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize 
additional measures to carry out the control of salinity 
upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner, and for 
other purposes.
    Enactment of S. 523 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 523.
    2. Bill title: An act to amend the Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry 
out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-
effective manner, and for other purposes.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Resources on May 24, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: S. 523 would authorize appropriations of 
$75 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a new 
program to reduce salinity in the Colorado River basin from 
saline springs, leaking wells, irrigation sources, industrial 
sources, erosion of public and private land, or other sources. 
The authorized funds also could be used to cover costs 
associated with ongoing salinity control projects. The federal 
government would be reimbursed over time for 30 percent of any 
appropriations provided for S. 523 through the Upper Colorado 
River Basin Fund (UCRBF) and the Lower Colorado River Basin 
Development Fund (LCRBDF), which collect surcharges from power 
users through the Western Area Power Administration.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Based on 
information from the Department of the Interior, CBO estimates 
that the $75 million in appropriations authorized by S. 523 
would be used entirely for new salinity control projects. We 
expect that funding for these new projects would be required 
beginning in fiscal year 1996, and that outlays would reflect 
historical spending patterns for similar construction projects. 
Estimated outlays for these projects would total $52 million 
over the 1996-2000 period, as shown in the following table. 
Because of the anticipated length of the project, additional 
outlays would continue beyond fiscal year 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               1996     1997     1998     1999     2000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of                                                        
 appropriations............        6        8       10       15       15
Estimated outlays..........        5        8       10       14       15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
    The act's reimbursement requirements would not affect 
outlays over the 1996-2000 period. Fifteen percent of the 
reimbursable portion of the appropriation would be paid from 
collections to the UCRBF within 50 years after a project 
becomes operational, and the remaining 85 percent of the 
reimbursable costs would be paid from collections to the LCRBDF 
as costs for construction are incurred. To cover the 
reimbursable costs allocated to the UCRBF, CBO expects that the 
federal government would increase its power surcharge rate 
beginning in fiscal year 2002. We expect that no rate change 
would be made to cover costs allocated to the LCRBDF because 
this fund is currently running an annual surplus of about $9 
million.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: None.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: On April 3, 1995, CBO prepared 
an estimate of S. 523, a bill to amend the Colorado River Basin 
Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry 
out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-
effective manner, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources on March 29, 1995. That version 
of S. 523 was identical to this version and the cost estimates 
are the same.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Theresa Gullo.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
                          Departmental Reports

    The Committee has received no departmental reports on S. 
523.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ACT

          * * * * * * *

             TITLE II--MEASURES UPSTREAM FROM IMPERIAL DAM

          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 202. (a) The Secretary is authorized to construct, 
operate, and maintain [the following salinity control units] 
the following salinity control units and salinity control 
program as the initial stage of the Colorado River Basin 
salinity control program[.]:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (6) A basinwide salinity control program that the 
        Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, 
        shall implement. The Secretary may carry out the 
        purposes of this paragraph directly, or may make 
        grants, commitments for grants, or advances of funds to 
        non-Federal entities under such terms and conditions as 
        the Secretary may require. Such program shall consist 
        of cost-effective measures and associated works to 
        reduce salinity from saline springs, leaking wells, 
        irrigation sources, industrial sources, erosion of 
        public and private land, or other sources that the 
        Secretary considers appropriate. Such program shall 
        provide for the mitigation of incidental fish and 
        wildlife values that are lost as a result of the 
        measures and associated works. The Secretary shall 
        submit a planning report concerning the program 
        established under this paragraph to the appropriate 
        committees of Congress. The Secretary may not expend 
        funds for any implementation measure under the program 
        established under this paragraph before the expiration 
        of a 30-day period beginning on the date on which the 
        Secretary submits such report.
    (b) In implementing the units authorized to be constructed 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out the 
following directions:
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) In implementing the [units authorized to be 
        constructed pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), 
        and (5)] units authorized to be constructed or the 
        program pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), 
        and (6) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall comply 
        with procedural and substantive State water laws.
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 205. (a) The Secretary shall allocate the total costs 
(excluding costs borne by non-Federal participants pursuant to 
section 202(c)(2)(C)) of the on-farm measures authorized by 
section 202(c), of all measures to replace incidental fish and 
wildlife values foregone, and of each unit or separable feature 
thereof authorized by section 202(a) of this title, as follows:
          (1) In recognition of Federal responsibility for the 
        Colorado River as an interstate stream and for 
        international comity with Mexico, Federal ownership of 
        the lands of the Colorado River Basin from which most 
        of the dissolved salts originate, and the policy 
        embodied in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
        Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816), 75 per centum of the 
        total costs of construction, operation, maintenance, 
        and replacement of each unit or separable feature 
        thereof authorized by section 202(a) (1), (2), and (3), 
        including 75 per centum of the total costs of 
        construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
        associated measures to replace incidental fish and 
        wildlife values foregone, 70 per centum of the total 
        costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and 
        replacement of each unit, or separable feature thereof 
        [authorized by section 202(a) (4) and (5)] authorized 
        by paragraphs (4) through (6) of section 202(a), 
        including 70 per centum of the total costs of 
        construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
        associated measures to replace incidental fish and 
        wildlife values foregone, and 70 per centum of the 
        total costs of implementation of the on-farm measures 
        authorized by section 202(c), including 70 per centum 
        of the total costs of the associated measures to 
        replace incidental fish and wildlife values foregone, 
        shall be nonreimbursable. The total costs remaining 
        after these allocations shall be reimbursable as 
        provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), of 
        section 205(a).
          * * * * * * *
          (4)(i) Costs of construction and replacement of each 
        unit or separable feature thereof authorized by 
        [sections 202(a) (4) and (5)] paragraphs (4) through 
        (6) of section 202, costs of construction of measures 
        to replace incidental fish and wildlife values 
        foregone, when such measures are a part of the on-farm 
        measures authorized by section 202(c) of the units 
        authorized by [sections 202(a) (4) and (5)] paragraphs 
        (4) through (6) of section 202, and costs of 
        implementation of the on-farm measures authorized by 
        section 202(c) allocated to the upper basin and to the 
        lower basin under section 205(a)(2) of this title shall 
        be repaid as provided in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), 
        respectively, of this paragraph.
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 208. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) In addition to the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated under subsection (b), there are authorized to be 
appropriated $75,000,000 for subsection 202(a), including 
constructing the works described in paragraph 202(a)(6) and 
carrying out the measures described in such paragraph. 
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Secretary may implement the 
program under paragraph 202(a)(6) only to the extent and in 
such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
          * * * * * * *