[House Report 106-405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                106-405

======================================================================



 
             PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

October 20, 1999.--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 H.R. 970]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 970) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System, 
Inc., for the construction of water supply facilities in 
Perkins County, South Dakota, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

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

SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

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

SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

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

SEC. 7. FEDERAL SHARE.

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

SEC. 8. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

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

SEC. 9. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.

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

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 970 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to provide assistance to the Perkins County Rural 
Water System, Inc., for the construction of water supply 
facilities in Perkins County, South Dakota.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Perkins County is located in Northwest South Dakota on the 
border with North Dakota. Like many areas in the High Plains, 
there are insufficient water supplies and much of what is 
available does not meet minimum health and safety standards. In 
1982, a study was undertaken on the feasibility of building a 
water supply system that could connect with the Southwest 
Pipeline Project in North Dakota, which was authorized in 
connection with the North Dakota Garrison Diversion Unit. Under 
the North Dakota Century Law (S.L. 1983, ch. 685, Sec. 8), a 
South Dakota connection was added as a component of the 
Southwest Water Authority.
    In the early 1990s, South Dakota and Perkins County funded 
a water supply feasibility study which was completed in 1994. 
The study concluded that obtaining water from the Southwest 
Water Authority was the most feasible option and that the 
necessary water supply system would cost approximately $20 
million. Since other projected and authorized North Dakota 
users have decided they will not connect to the Southwest 
Pipeline Project, arrangements were made for Perkins County to 
participate. As part of an agreement with North Dakota, Perkins 
County would be able to obtain water at the lower operation and 
maintenance cost if it furnished approximately $5.5 million to 
increase the pipe size to provide 400 gallons/minute. Since the 
Southwest Pipeline Project is an ongoing project, $440,000 was 
provided in 1996 and $550,000 in 1997 to North Dakota. An 
additional $4.5 million will need to be provided to North 
Dakota during construction of the Perkins County connection to 
reimburse the State for work already completed. H.R. 970 
provides for a 75-25 federal-local cost share, with a total 
authorization of $15 million, for the water supply project 
costs.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 970 was introduced on March 3, 1999, by Congressman 
John R. Thune (R-SD). H.R. 970 was referred to the Committee on 
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water 
and Power. In the 105th Congress, a hearing was held on similar 
legislation (H.R. 1213) by the Subcommittee on Water and Power. 
On August 4, 1999, the Full Resources Committee met to consider 
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further 
consideration of the measure by unanimous consent. Congressman 
Billy Tauzin (R-LA) offered an amendment to clarify how Pick-
Sloan power is to be provided for project operation. It was 
adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice 
vote.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides the short title for the bill, the 
Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.

Section 2. Findings

    In 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature directed the 
State Water Commission to conduct the Southwest Area Water 
Supply Study, which included water service to the State of 
South Dakota, including a portion of Perkins County.
    Amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit 
Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the 
Southwest Pipeline Project as an eligible project for federal 
cost share participation. The Perkins County Rural Water System 
is viewed as an extension of the Southwest Pipeline Project.

Section 3. Definitions

    This section defines six terms used in the bill.

Section 4. Federal assistance for water supply system

    Section 4(a) authorizes grants from the Secretary of the 
Interior for planning and construction of the system and for 
repairs to the existing distribution system to promote 
conservation and efficiency. Subsection 4(b) prohibits any 
obligation of funds until requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are met and a final engineering 
report is submitted to Congress for 90 days. The inclusion of a 
provision providing that the requirements of NEPA must be met 
is not intended to suggest that such requirements would not 
apply in the absence of the provision nor to suggest that a 
full Environmental Impact Statement or even an Environmental 
Assessment would be necessary.

Section 5. Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses

    This section provides language on mitigation for fish and 
wildlife losses on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological 
equivalency. The Committee expects that the mitigation acreage 
will be on a one-for-one basis.

Section 6. Use of Pick-Sloan power

    For operation during the period beginning May 1 and ending 
October 31 of each year, portions of the water supply system 
shall be eligible to utilize power from the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
Basin Program established by section 9 of the Act of December 
22, 1944 (Chapter 665, 58 Stat. 887). The Committee expects 
that the rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy 
made available shall be the firm power rate schedule of the 
Pick-Sloan Eastern Division, Western Power Administration, in 
effect when the power is delivered by the Administration.

Section 7. Federal share

    This section provides that the federal share shall be 75 
percent of the total project construction budget for planning 
and construction of the water supply system and shall be 
indexed as reflected in appropriate engineering cost indices 
after March 1, 1995.

Section 8. Non-federal share

    This section provides that the non-federal share shall be 
25 percent of the total project construction budget for 
planning and construction of the water supply system and shall 
be indexed as reflected in appropriate engineering cost indices 
after March 1, 1995.

Section 9. Construction oversight

    This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide construction oversight and limits expenditures by the 
Secretary under this authority to three percent of the 
construction budget.

Section 10. Authorization of appropriations

    This section authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary 
of the Interior $15 million for the planning and construction 
of the system plus additional funds to cover increases in 
project costs during construction.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
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 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII 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 on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 5, 1999.
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 H.R. 970, the Perkins 
County Rural Water System Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley 
(for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (For the state and 
local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 970--Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 970 would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (the 
bureau), to provide financial assistance to the Perkins County 
Rural Water System, Inc., for planning and constructing the 
Perkins County Rural Water System. To carry out these 
activities, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $15 
million in 1995 dollars plus additional amounts to cover 
increases in project costs during construction. The system 
would provide water to members of the Perkins County Rural 
Water System, Inc., in Perkins County, South Dakota.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 970 would require 
appropriations of $18 million over the 2000-2004 period. We 
estimate that outlays would total $16 million over that period 
and $2 million after 2004. Enacting the bill would not affect 
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 970 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
State and local governments might incur some costs as a result 
of the bill's enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 970 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level......................................        1        3        5        5        4
Estimated Outlays..................................................        1        2        4        5        4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 
1999 and that the estimated amounts necessary to implement the 
bill will be appropriated for each year. Based on information 
provided by the bureau, CBO anticipates that environmental and 
engineering studies for the project would be completed by the 
end of fiscal year 2001, that construction would begin in 2002, 
and that the project would be completed by 2006. (The bureau 
has indicated that it would take between three and five years 
to complete the project.) The estimated amounts of annual 
funding needed to meet this schedule are based on information 
provided by the bureau.
    The total estimated cost of $18 million over the 2000-2004 
period reflects observed inflation from 1995 through 1998 and 
estimated inflation for 1999 through 2004. CBO estimates that 
inflation of between 2 percent and 3 percent a year would 
increase the project's total cost from $15 million in 1995 
dollars to about $18 million, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts over the 2000-2004 period. The estimated 
outlays are based on historical rates of spending for the types 
of activities authorized by the bill. The Perkins County Rural 
Water System, Inc., would bear the cost of operating and 
maintaining the project.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 970 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The bill would set the nonfederal share of project costs 
at 25 percent. Any state or local governments choosing to 
participate in the project would do so on a voluntary basis.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains 
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On March 11, 1999, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 243, the Perkins County Rural Water System 
Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources on March 4, 1999. The two bills 
are nearly identical, and the two cost estimates are identical.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley; impact on 
state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                preemption of state, local or tribal law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                
