[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.

                                
