[Senate Report 105-377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 640
105th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 105-377
_______________________________________________________________________
WATER-RELATED TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1997
_______
October 7 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2402]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the Act (H.R. 2402) to make technical and clarifying
amendments to improve the management of water-related
facilities in the Western United States, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends
that the Act, as amended, do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Page 2, line 5, delete:
``Sec. 9. Olivenhain Water Storage Project loan guarantee.
``Sec. 10.''
and insert:
``Sec. 9.''.
2. Page 4, line 14, after ``certification'' and before
``forms'' insert ``or reporting''.
3. Page 8, beginning on line 9, delete section 9 in its
entirety and renumber section 10 as section 9.
Purpose of the Measure
As reported, H.R. 2402:
(1) reduces the congressional waiting period for the
Secretary to obligate funds under the Safety of Dams
Act;
(2) amends the authorization for the Albuquerque and
Phoenix water reuse projects to clarify that the
authorization includes construction;
(3) authorizes the refund of amounts collected in
error under the Reclamation Reform Act;
(4) clarifies that the extension for repayment
obligations on the Nueces and Canadian River projects
under the 1996 Drought Relief Act included principal as
well as interest;
(5) authorizes the Secretary to contract for wheeling
of water with Solano project contractors;
(6) authorizes use of Canadian River project
facilities for wheeling of non-project water; and
(7) authorizes $2 million in financial assistance for
fish passage facilities in the Rogue River Basin,
Oregon.
The Committee amendment deletes a provision that authorizes
a loan guarantee for the Olivenhain water storage project.
Background and Need
H.R. 2402 incorporates several miscellaneous provisions
relating to Federal water projects administered by the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Section 2 of H.R. 2402 reduces the waiting period for
obligation of funds provided under the Reclamation Safety Dams
Act of 1978 from 60 days (not including any days when the House
or the Senate were not in session for more than three calendar
days) to 30 calendar days. The current method of calculating
the waiting period, which does not include congressional
recesses, often results in waiting periods of much longer than
60 days before funds can be obligated. In several instances in
the past, Congress has had to waive this waiting period because
of the pressing need for dam safety to proceed. Reducing the
waiting period to 30 days will give adequate time for
congressional review of planned work, but should not unduly
delay needed work under the Act.
Section 3 of H.R. 2402 amends section 1621 of the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992,
as amended, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the planning, design and construction of the
Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse
Project. Funds have already been provided for construction in
the FY '99 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
Section 4 clarifies the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to participate in the planning, design, and
construction of the Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and
Reuse Project. The language of H.R. 2402 conforms section 1608
of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of
1992 with language authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in other reuse projects under Title XVI.
Section 5 requires the Secretary of the Interior to refund
overpaid amounts received by the United States as the result of
form compensation bills under the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982 (RRA), subject to the availability of appropriations. Many
water districts paid these bills in protest, and in Orange Cove
Irrigation District v. the United States, the judge concluded
that Reclamation did not have the authority to assess monetary
penalties or fines for failure to submit the required forms. In
a September 16, 1997, letter to the Subcommittee Chairman of
the House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the
House Committee on Resources, the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science of the Department of the Interior stated that,
``Reclamation supports the intent of section 6 (now renumbered
as section 5) to enable Reclamation to refund monies to those
entities who were billed and paid the full-cost rate for RRA
forms violations.''
Section 6 meets one of the objectives of the Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-328) by clarifying that
the temporary debt relief provided to the city of Corpus
Christi, Texas, the Nueces River Authority, and the Canadian
River Municipal Water Authority should result in an extension
of their repayment period at the end of the repayment
obligation equal to the number of years for which the temporary
debt relief has been provided. The Department of the Interior
notified the Congress several weeks after the President signed
the 1996 Act that the language was insufficient to meet the
stated objective of extending the repayment period because of
provisions of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. The
Department subsequently indicated that it did not object to
this language.
Section 7 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into contracts, pursuant to the Act of February 21, 1911 (known
as the Warren Act), for the impounding, storage, and carriage
of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial and
other beneficial purposes, as well as the exchange of water
among Solano Project contractors, using any facilities
associated with the Solano Project, California. The city of
Vallejo has tried to use its water supply facilities more
efficiently, but has been limited by a provision in Federal law
that prohibits the city from sharing space in an existing
Federal water delivery canal. The city of Vallejo wants to
``wheel'' some of its drinking water through part of the canal
serving California's Solano Project, a water project built by
the Bureau of Reclamation in 1950s. The city of Vallejo is
prepared to pay any appropriate charges for the use of these
facilities.
Section 8 amends the authorization for the Canadian River
Project to provide authority for the carriage of water from the
Canadian River Conjunctive Use Groundwater Project to
municipalities that are currently beneficiaries of the project.
The authority would provide greater efficiencies for the
Project and obviate the need for the construction of additional
facilities.
Section 9 authorizes up to $2 million in financial
assistance to the Medford and Rogue River Valley Irrigation
Districts for the design and construction of fish passage
facilities if the Secretary determines that such facilities
would enhance fish recovery efforts at the Rogue River Basin
Project.
Legislative History
H.R. 2402 was introduced on September 4, 1997 and referred
to the House Resources Committee. The measure was reported on
October 28, 1997, passed the House, amended, by a voice vote on
November 9, 1997. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
has not held a hearing on the bill.
At the business meeting on September 23, 1998, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 2402, as
amended, favorably reported.
Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on September 23, 1998, by a unanimous voice
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R.
2402, if amended as described herein.
Committee Amendments
During the consideration of H.R. 2402, the Committee
adopted two amendments. The first amendment adds the phrase
``or reporting'' to the authorization for repayment of sums
collected in error under the Reclamation Reform Act. The
amendment was suggested by the Department of the Interior since
the existing language is limited to certification forms and
some assessments had been made for form violations. The second
amendment deletes the authorization for a loan guarantee for
the Olivenhain Water Storage Project, and makes conforming
changes to the table of contents. No hearings have been held on
this proposal and the Committee believes that a hearing should
be held on the concept of loan guarantees rather than more
traditional forms of Federal participation in water storage
projects.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 provides a short title and table of contents.
Section 2 reduces the waiting period for obligation of
funds provided under the Reclamation Safety Dams Act of 1978
from 60 days (not including days when the House or the Senate
were not in session for more than three calendar days) to 30
calendar days.
Section 3 amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, as amended, to
clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the Albuquerque Metropolitan Reclamation and
Reuse Project.
Section 4 amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, as amended, to
clarify the authority of the Interior to participate in the
Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Reuse Project.
Section 5 requires the Secretary of the Interior to refund
overpaid amounts received by the United States as the result of
form compensation bills under the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982, subject to the availability of appropriations.
Section 6 amends the Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-328) to clarify that the temporary debt relief
provided to the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, the Nueces River
Authority, and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority
under that Act includes an extension of their repayment period
at the end of the repayment obligation equal to the number of
years for which the temporary debt relief has been provided.
Section 7 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into contracts, pursuant to the Act of February 21, 1911, for
the conveyance of nonproject water for domestic, municipal,
industrial and other beneficial purposes, as well as the
exchange of water among Solano Project contractors, using
facilities of the Solano Project, California. The section
limits the authorization to the use of that portion of the
Solano Project downstream of Mile 26 of the Putah South Canal
and to that portion of the Solano Project facilities below the
diversion points on the Putah South Canal used by the city of
Fairfield.
Section 8 amends the authorization for the Canadian River
Project to permit the use of Project facilities for the
carriage of water from the Canadian River Conjunctive Use
Groundwater Project.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
An estimate of the cost of this measure has been requested
from the Congressional Budget Office, but has not been received
as of the date of filing of this report. When the estimate is
received, the Chairman will have it printed in the
Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate. CBO
estimated that H.R. 2402, as reported by the House Committee,
would ``lead to an increase in appropriated spending of about
$13 million over the 1998-2002 period, $9 million in 2003, $2
million in 2004, and less that $0.5 million annually
thereafter, assuming appropriations consistent with the bill's
provisions.'' CBO also estimated that there would be less than
$500,000 in additional direct spending offset by less than
$500,000 in new payments. There were no intergovernmental or
private sector mandates. The provisions for financial
assistance for fish passage facilities were added on the House
floor. No estimate of costs is available although the measure
authorizes up to $2 million for the fish passage facilities.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 2402. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of H.R. 2402, as ordered reported.
Executive Communications
The Committee has not held hearings on this measure and has
not requested formal Executive agency recommendations. The
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the
Interior, provided formal views of the Administration on H.R.
2402 in a letter to the Subcommittee on Water and Power
Resources of the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives on September 16, 1998. That communication
follows:
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, September 16, 1997.
Hon. John Doolittle,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on H.R. 2402, Water Related Technical Corrections Act of 1997.
I would appreciate your assistance in including this letter in
the September 11, 1997, hearing record.
The Department opposes H.R. 2402 as drafted. The Department
recommends amendments to sections 2, 3, and 6 as discussed
below and we believe sections 4 and 5 are premature.
Section 2. Authority to Use Reclamation Project Facilities for
Nonproject Water
The language in Section 2 would broaden Reclamation's
authority under the Warren Act and enable Reclamation to
provide water to additional contracting entities for additional
purposes. Reclamation supports this effort to expand the use of
Reclamation facilities. However, it is important to point out
that the Warren Act has always provided authority for the
transport and storage of non-project water in and through
Federal facilities. The addition of non-project water in H.R.
2402 would only clarify existing law and grant new authority
regarding the use of Federal facilities to transport non-
project water for non-irrigation purposes. Reclamation supports
this amendment and believes that it will provide additional
flexibility to meet water supply needs.
Reclamation recommends that a new subparagraph (ii) be
inserted in Section 2(1)(A) and all subparagraphs thereafter be
renumbered appropriately. The new subparagraph (ii) would
insert a comma so that the first sentence of the statute reads
better. The new subparagraph would read:
``(ii) by inserting a comma following the phrase ``to an
extent not exceeding such excess capacity,''
Reclamation recommends the following additional changes to
Section 2(1)(B) of H.R. 2402:
(1) On page 3, line 6, delete ``by the party with whom the
contract is made'' in the first sentence. This deletion is
intended to ensure that Reclamation contracts with project
water users such as municipalities. As currently drafted, the
bill could create master contracting entities, such as
irrigation districts wanting to sell project water. Contract
arrangements where Reclamation is not a party have created
problems in the past. Master contractors would make protection
of federal interests, and the interests of existing project
water users, significantly more difficult. This could be
avoided if Reclamation contracts directly with the new water
user.
In light of the above, language could be added to the
legislation authorizing the Secretary to enter into three party
contracts between Reclamation, an irrigation district, and end
users, e.g., a municipality, for delivery of water to a new
use. Suggested language for inclusion after the first sentence
of this subsection follows: ``The Secretary may enter three
party agreements between the Secretary, and a proposed new user
of project facilities or project water, to facilitate the
transfer of the right to use project facilities or project
water to the proposed user.''
(2) On page 3, line 5 delete the word ``distribution'' in
the first sentence and replacing it with ``use.''
(3) On page 3, line 10 insert ``(including the use of the
facilities for'' before ``nonproject'' in the second sentence.
(4) On page 3, line 13, insert ``consistent with any pre-
existing rights and applicable law'' after ``beneficial
purposes''.
(5) On page 3, lines 14-15, delete ``and water (including
nonproject water).'' This will clarify that Reclamation is
directed to give first priority to meeting the project
purposes, prior to allowing additional uses for nonproject
purposes. The language currently in the bill risks confusion
over possible diversion of nonproject water for project
purposes which is not intended.
(6) On page 3, line 17, insert ``and used for irrigation''
in the last sentence after ``carried.''
Reclamation notes that the cooperating agencies listed in
various places in Section 1 of the Warren Act, as amended, are
inconsistent. Further, since the cooperating agencies are
listed in Section 1 of the Warren Act as amended, a matching
list should be included in Section 2 of the Warren Act, as
amended. Reclamation recommends that the list of cooperating
agencies be consistent throughout the Warren Act.
In addition in Section 1 of the Warren Act, Reclamation
recommends the deletion of the entire sentence that begins ``In
fixing the charges under any such contract for * * *'' In lieu
thereof, Reclamation supports language consistent with Section
102c of Public Law 102-250 whichrequires a price sufficient to
recover all Federal operation and maintenance costs and administration
and an appropriate share of capital costs, including interest on such
costs allocated to municipal and industrial water.
section 3. reduction of waiting period for obligation of funds provided
under reclamation safety of dams act of 1978
Under the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act, the Secretary is
required to send a dam safety modification report to Congress,
and Congress has 60 legislative days to review the report. The
Secretary may not obligate any funds for dam safety repair work
during the 60 legislative day review period. Section 3 of H.R.
2402 would reduce from 60 legislative days to 30 calendar days
the amount of time Congress has to review the report. The 30
day calendar requirement is an improvement over the 60
legislative day requirement. In several instances involving
repair work at Como, Ochoco, and Cachuma Projects, the Congress
has enacted legislation waiving the waiting requirement so that
Reclamation could commence dam safety repair work.
section 4. albuquerque metropolitan area reclamation and reuse project
Section 4 would modify Reclamation's authority to
participate in the feasibility study for the Albuquerque
Metropolitan Area Reclamation and Reuse Project, and enable
Reclamation to engage in planning, design and construction
activities, consistent with Reclamation's authority for the 17
other projects authorized in Title XVI. The feasibility report
for the Albuquerque project has been completed.
Reclamation has established an in-house water recycling
team responsible for establishing criteria for Federal support
for Title XVI projects. Until such time as the team has
established Federal objectives for water recycling projects,
Reclamation cannot support the authorization of additional
projects for construction.
section 5. phoenix metropolitan water Reclamation and Reuse Project
Section 5 would expand the authorized project purposes for
the Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Reuse Project to
include municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes in
addition to the environmental, groundwater recharge and direct
potable reuse purposes authorized in Section 1608 of the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
Section 5 also would clarify that the Phoenix Metropolitan
Water Reclamation and Reuse Project could receive Federal
grants and repayment would not be required.
Until such time as Reclamation's water recycling team
completes its effort, Reclamation cannot support expanded
authorization for the Phoenix project.
Reclamation also notes that Section 5 would authorize the
Secretary to participate in the planning, design, and
construction of a project that includes a direct potable reuse
component. Direct potable reuse projects is generally
considered to be ``pipe-to-pipe'' system where treated
wastewater from a treatment plant is introduced directly into
the potable water supply by means of a direct pipe connection.
This type of technology is not an accepted practice in this
country, due primarily to health concerns.
section 6. refund of Amounts received as paid form compensation bills
under reclamation reform act of 1982
Section 6 would address Reclamation's authority to refund
payments to certain water users. Under the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (RRA), direct and indirect landowners and lessees
(landholders) are required to file RRA forms prior to receiving
irrigation water. Such forms are submitted to districts who
control the actual delivery of irrigation water. A longstanding
problem has been the delivery of irrigation water to
landholders who do not have forms on file. To address the
problem, Reclamation in 1988 billed districts the full-cost
rate for any of their landholders who were required to submit
RRA forms, but did not file the form, and still received water
for the period of the violation. Some districts, but not all,
paid their bills. As a result of Reclamation's review of the
issue and a rulemaking action, in March 1995, Reclamation began
to impose an administrative fee to address violations of the
RRA forms requirements. As part of Reclamation's actions to
address the full-cost bills for RRA forms violations,
Reclamation attempted to refund part of the monies paid, but
was advised that it did not have the legal authority to do so.
Reclamation supports the intent of Section 6 to enable
Reclamation to refund monies to those entities who were billed
and paid the full-cost rate for RRA forms violations.
However, as drafted, the language would not give
Reclamation the authority to provide refunds for the issue the
bill is attempting to address. Reclamation recommends a few
technical changes. The phrase in subsection (a) ``from an error
in a form issued by the Secretary of the Interior before
January 1, 1994, for furnishing certificates'' should be
deleted and substituted with ``from the delivery of such water
prior to a required Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 form being
on file as provided for''. There was no error in the forms
issued by the Secretary.
Section 6 should enable reclamation to address prior law
form violations as well as discretionary provision violations.
To accomplish this, subsections (a) and (b) should reference
Section 224c as well as Section 206 of the RRA.
As drafted, Section would not enable Reclamation to treat
all water districts consistently. In subsection (b),
Reclamation suggests that the word ``occurrence'' be
substituted for ``collection''. Reclamation did not issue bills
uniformly. For example, some regions issued one bill for each
violation and other districts issued multiple violations on
each bill. By substituting the word ``occurrence'' for the word
``collection'' in subsection (b) Reclamation would be in the
position to treat all districts fairly and equitably on this
issue.
Finally, Reclamation recommends that a new subsection be
inserted regarding authorization of appropriations. Without an
authorization and an appropriation, Reclamation will not be in
the position to refund the monies. We estimate that a one time
appropriation of $1,250,000 will be needed to cover refund
costs.
section 7. designation of trinity lake
Section 7 would change the name of the reservoir created by
Trinity Dam from ``Clair Engle Lake'' to ``Trinity Lake.''
Reclamation supports this name change.
section 8. extension of periods for repayments for Nueces River
Reclamation project and Canadian River Reclamation Project, Texas
Section 8 would clarify the manner in which Reclamation is
authorized to implement debt deferrals for the City of Corpus
Christi, Texas, the Nueces River Authority and the Canadian
River municipal Water Authority. Last year, Public Law 104-318
provided for a deferral of repayment debt for certain Texas
entities. While Committee report language described how
Reclamation should extend the repayment period, the statute was
not consistent with Committee report language. Section 8
describes how the Secretary will extend the period for
repayment for certain contracts, notwithstanding the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Reclamation does not object to
this language.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
This concludes Reclamation's statement on H.R. 2402. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify.
Sincerely,
Patricia J. Beneke,
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill H.R. 2402, as ordered 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):
THE RECLAMATION SAFETY OF DAMS ACT OF 1978
(92 Stat. 2471; 43 U.S.C. 509)
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 1979 and ensuing fiscal years such sums as may be
necessary and, effective October 1, 1983, not to exceed an
additional $650,000,000 (October 1, 1983, price levels), plus
or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of
ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by
engineering cost indexes applicable to the types of
construction involved herein, to carry out the provisions of
this Act to remain available until expended if so provided by
the appropriations Act: Provided, That no funds exceeding
$750,000 shall be obligated for carrying out actual
construction to modify an existing dam under authority of this
Act prior to [sixty days (which sixty days shall not include
days on which either the House of Representatives or the Senate
is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three
calendar days to a day certain)] 30 calendar days from the date
that the Secretary has transmitted a report on such existing
dam to the Congress. The report required to be submitted by
this section will consist of a finding by the Secretary of the
Interior to the effect that modifications are required to be
made to insure the safety of an existing dam. Such finding
shall be accompanied by a technical report containing
information on the need for structural modification, the
corrective action deemed to be required, alternative solutions
to structural modification that were considered, the estimated
cost of needed modifications, and environmental impacts if any
resulting from the implementation of the recommended plan of
modification.
----------
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992
(Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4600)
* * * * * * *
TITLE XVI--RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1608. PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION STUDY AND PROGRAM.
[(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with the city of
Phoenix, Arizona, shall conduct a feasibility study of the
potential for development of facilities to utilize fully
wastewater from the regional wastewater treatment plant for
direct municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental
purposes, groundwater, recharge and direct potable reuse in the
Phoenix metropolitan area, and in cooperation with the city of
Phoenix design and construct facilities for environmental
purposes, ground water recharge and direct potable reuse.]
(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with the city of Phoenix,
Arizona, shall participate in the planning, design, and
construction of the Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and
Reuse Project to utilize fully wastewater from the regional
wastewater treatment plant for direct municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and environmental purposes, groundwater recharge,
and direct potable reuse in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
(b) [The Federal share of the costs of the study authorized
by this section shall not exceed 50 per centum of the total.]
The Federal share of the costs associated with the project
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 per centum of
the total. The Secretary shall not provide funds for operation
or maintenance of the project.
[(c) The Secretary shall submit the report authorized by
this section to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives not later than two years after
appropriation of funds authorized by this title.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1621. ALBUQUERQUE METROPOLITAN AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE
[STUDY].
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is authorized to participate
in the planning, design, and construction of the Albuquerque
Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse [Study] Project
to reclaim and reuse industrial and municipal wastewater and
reclaim and use naturally impaired ground water in the
Albuquerque metropolitan area.
* * * * * * *
----------
THE EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 1996
(Public Law 104-318, 110 Stat. 3862)
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2. EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Extension of Periods for Repayment.--Notwithstanding
any provision of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C.
485 et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall extend the period for repayment by the City
of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Nueces River
Authority under contract No. 6-07-01-X0675, relating to
the Nueces River reclamation project, Texas, until--
(A) August 1, 2029, for repayment pursuant to
the municipal and industrial water supply
benefits portion of the contract; and
(B) until August 1, 2044, for repayment
pursuant to the fish and wildlife and
recreation benefits portion of the contract;
and
(2) shall extend the period for repayment by the
Canadian River Municipal Water Authority under contract
No. 14-06-500-485, relating to the Canadian River
reclamation project, Texas, until October 1, 2021.
----------
Canadian River Project
An act to authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance by the
Secretary of the Interior of the Canadian River reclamation project,
Texas. (Act of December 29, 1950, ch. 1183, 64 Stat. 1124)
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall allow use
of the project distribution system (including all pipelines,
aqueducts, pumping plants, and related facilities) for
transport of water from the Canadian River Conjunctive Use
Groundwater Project to municipalities that are receiving water
from the project. Such use shall be subject only to such
environmental review as is required under the Memorandum of
Understanding, No. 97-AG-60-09340, between the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority,
and a review and approval of the engineering design of the
interconnection facilities to assure the continued integrity of
the project. Such environmental review shall be completed
within 90 days after the date of enactment of this section.
(b) The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority shall bear
the responsibility for all costs of construction, operation,
and maintenance of the Canadian River Conjunctive Groundwater
Project, and for costs incurred by the Secretary in conducting
the environmental review of the project. The Secretary shall
not assess any additional charges in connection with the
Canadian River Conjunctive Use Groundwater Project.