[Senate Report 106-175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 305
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-175
======================================================================
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ACT
_______
October 6, 1999.--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 S. 1211]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1211) 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, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, after line 8, insert the following:
``SEC. 2. REPORT.
``The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report on
the status of implementation of the comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management directed by Sec.
203(b)(3) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (43
U.S.C. 1593). The report shall provide specific information on
individual projects and funding allocation. The report shall be
transmitted to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
no later than June 30, 2000.''
Purpose of the Measure
The purpose of S. 1211 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
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water
for more than 18 million people in seven States; it also
provides irrigation water for about 2 million acres of land.
Yet the salinity, or salt content, of the river is high, in
large part because of natural features such as underlying salt
formations and saline springs. Agriculture is also a large
contributor of salt to the river, as irrigation water seeps
through saline soils and returns to the river. Salinity in the
Colorado River corrodes water pipes and damages crops.
The 1944 Mexico Treaty obligates the United States to
provide 1.5 million acre feet of water to Mexico, but does not
address quality. Mexico filed a formal protest in the 1960's
when salinity increased sharply. Several minutes to the Treaty
were negotiated, the final one being Minute 242. The most
important provision requires that the average annual salinity
of the Colorado delivered upstream from Morelos Dam (Mexico's
principal diversion dam) would not exceed the average salinity
of the water arriving at Imperial Dam by more than 115 parts
per million, plus or minus 30 ppm.
To address salinity problems, and ensure the United States
could meet its obligation to Mexico, the Congress passed the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I
addressed the Mexican obligation by authorizing the Yuma
Desalting Plant, the Wellton-Mohawk 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 authorized the Secretary of the
interior to construct several salinity control projects, most
of which are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Amendments
to the Act in 1984 authorized additional projects for the
Bureau and authorized projects by the Bureau of Land Management
and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, under the Clean
Water Act, the EPA approved standards established by the states
for salinity levels for the river water.
In March 1993, the Inspector General issued an audit report
on the salinity control program and made several
recommendations. One recommendation was that the Bureau of Land
Management become more aggressive in its actions, especially
since BLM actions seemed to be most cost-effective. The report
noted that BLM estimated that its lands contributed about
700,000 tons of salt annually and that measures to control this
salt loading would be in the rate of $35-$60 per ton, but that
plans were designed only to remove 50,000 tons by the year
2010. The estimate for the Grand Valley project, by comparison,
is $147-$386 per ton.
S. 1211 would authorize additional measures to carry out
the control of the Colorado River's salinity, upstream of
Imperial Dam. The bill amends the Act to reauthorize the
funding of the competitive Basin-wide program for salinity and
increases the authorization from $75 million to $175 million.
Bill sponsors believe the increase in essential to maintaining
Colorado River water quality standards for salinity adopted by
the seven Colorado River Basin states and approved by the EPA.
Maintenance of the standards would avoid costly salinity
damage.
Legislative History
S. 1211 was introduced by Senator Bennett on June 10, 1999
and a Subcommittee hearing was held on July 28, 1999. At the
business meeting on September 22, 1999, the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources ordered S. 1211, as amended, favorably
reported.
Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on September 22, 1999, by a unanimous vote of
a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1211, if
amended as described herein.
Committee Amendments
During the consideration of S. 1211, the Committee adopted
an amendment that requires the Secretary of the Interior to
prepare a report on activities to minimize salt contributions
to the Colorado River from BLM lands. BLM was required to
develop a comprehensive plan for such activities by 1987,
pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act.
Summary of the Measure
As reported, S. 1211 amends the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act to reauthorize and increase funding for
competitive basin-wide programs to address salinity of the
Colorado River upstream of Imperial Dam. The measure also
requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report on
activities on BLM lands.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 5, 1999.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1211, 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.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the
state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1211--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
Summary: S. 1211 would authorize the appropriation of $175
million for a program to control the salinity of the Colorado
River upstream of the Imperial Dam. Under current law the
Congress has authorized the appropriation of $75 million for
this activity. The bill would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to prepare a report by June 30, 2000, on the status of
the comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to
the Colorado River.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 1211 would result in additional
discretionary spending of about $6 million over the 2000-2004
period. Enacting this legislation would not affect direct
spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply. S. 1211 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
State and local governments might incur some costs to match the
federal funds authorized by this bill, but these costs would be
voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1211 is shown in the following table. Of
the $75 million authorized under current law about $36 million
has been appropriated through fiscal year 2000. Assuming that
annual appropriations for this program continue near the 2000
level of $12 million, as anticipated by the Department of the
Interior, the balance of the $75 million authorization would
not be exceeded until fiscal year 2000. Thus, CBO estimates
that the additional $100 million authorized by S. 1211 would be
appropriated in 2004 and in the following years. We estimate
that the report required by the bill would cost less than
$500,000 in fiscal year 2000. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority/Estimated Authorization Level \1\............. 12 12 12 12 2
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 12 12 12 12 6
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. (\2\) 0 0 0 10
Estimated Outlays.............................................. (\2\) 0 0 0 6
Spending under S. 1211:
Estimated Authorization Level \1\.............................. 12 12 12 12 12
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 12 12 12 12 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated in the Colorado River salinity control program for that year. The
estimated levels for fiscal years 2001 though 2004 represent the use of the remaining authorization under
current law.
\2\ Less than $500,000.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1211
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. State and local governments might incur some
costs to match the federal funds authorized by this bill, but
these costs would be voluntary.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact
on State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
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 S. 1211. 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 S. 1211, as ordered reported.
Executive Communications
On July 19, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 1211. These
reports had not been received at the time the report on S. 1211
was filed. When the reports become available, the Chairman will
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for
the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the
Department of the Interior at the Subcommittee hearing follows:
Statement of Steven Richardson, Chief of Staff, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
I am Steve Richardson, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Administration's views on S. 1211, the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Reauthorization Act.
In 1995, Congress established a pilot program authorizing
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to award up to $75
million in grants, on a competitive-bid basis, for salinity
control projects in the Colorado River Basin. The private
sector and state and local governments responded promptly; the
first project awards were made in 1997. Cost savings under this
pilot program have far exceeded expectations--down to an
average of $27 per ton of salt control, from the previous
average of $76 per ton. S. 1211 would reauthorize this program
and raise the authorization ceiling to $175 million, allowing
this innovative and cost-effective program to continue for
several years.
The Department supports S. 1211, although we encourage
Congress to consider increasing the local cost-share to reflect
the significant local benefits created by this program.
Reducing the salinity of the Colorado River as it moves
downstream remains one of the most important challenges facing
the Bureau of Reclamation. The Colorado River provides water
for more than 23 million people and irrigation for more than 4
million acres of land in the United States, as well as water
for about 2.3 million people and 500,000 irrigated acres in the
Republic of Mexico. Yet, the upper part of the river runs
through a saline-soaked landscape of badlands and saline
springs. As it moves downstream, the river picks up over 9
million tons of salt. Salinity damages in the United States
portion of the Colorado River Basin range between $500 million
to $750 million per year and could exceed $1.5 billion per year
if future increases are not controlled.
Under the 1995 pilot program, new salinity control projects
in the basin are built, owned, operated, and maintained by
private, local, or state entities. Reclamation has now
completed four rounds of public solicitations (requests for
proposals), ranked the proposals based on their cost and
performance risk factors, and awarded funds to the most highly
ranked projects.
One of the greatest advantages of this program comes from
the integration of Reclamation's program with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program. Water conservation
within irrigation projects on saline soils is the single most
effective salinity control measure found in the past 30 years
of investigations. By integrating the USDA's on-farm irrigation
improvements with Reclamation's off-farm improvements,
extremely high efficiencies can be obtained. For example, if
the landscape permits, pressure from piped delivery systems
(laterals) may be used to drive sprinkler irrigation systems at
efficiency rates far better than those normally obtained by
flood systems. In addition, this program allows Reclamation
much greater flexibility (in both timing and funding) to work
with the USDA to develop these types of projects.
This program also allows Reclamation to take advantage of
opportunities that are time sensitive. Cost sharing partners
(states and federal agencies) often have funds available at
very specific times. Under the old method of planning,
authorization, funding, and construction, it would often take
decades for Reclamation to be ready to proceed with a project.
None of Reclamation's past projects were able to attract cost
sharing because of this. For example, the Ashley Project (a
joint effort by the state of Utah, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and Reclamation) will eliminate 9,000 tons per
year of salt. Reclamation's salinity program is a relatively
minor but important part of the Ashley Project ($3 million in
an $18 million project). Once Reclamation had committed to fund
its part of the project, funds were included in the EPA's
budget by Congress to complete its role in the partnership.
Another significant advantage of the program is that
projects are ``owned'' by the proponent, not Reclamation. The
proponent is responsible to perform on their proposal. Costs
paid by Reclamation are controlled and limited by agreement. If
unforseen cost overruns do occur, the proponent has several
options: (1) the project may be terminated; (2) the proponent
may choose to cover the overruns with their own funds; (3) the
proponent may borrow funds from state programs; or, (4) the
proponent may choose to reformulate the project costs and re-
compete the project through the entire award process in the
next round.
As an example of the flexibility of the program, pipeline
bedding and materials costs for the Ferron Project were
underestimated in the proposal and subsequent construction
cooperative agreement. As such, the proponent was denied
permission to award materials contracts for the pipeline since
the costs were beyond those contained in the agreement. After
months of negotiations and analysis, the proponents chose to
terminate the project, reformulate it, and recompete against
other proposals the following year. Their project was found to
be competitive at the reformulated cost and was able to
proceed.
In 1999, Reclamation received nearly a dozen new proposals
which are working their way through the evaluation process. An
increase in the authorized funding ceiling is needed to be able
to continue the bid solicitation process so that future
projects can be scheduled, permitted, designed, and constructed
to meet the annual goals of the program over the next decade.
We would like to note that a change in cost-sharing might
be warranted for this program, and urge the Committee to
consider changing the cost share for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program to be consistent with similar federal
programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's Section
319. The Section 319 program, which like this program provides
cost-shared grants for non-point pollution control, requires a
40% non-Federal cost share as a reflection of the substantial
benefits that grant recipients receive.
Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Reclamation is an enthusiatic
participant in this excellent and innovative program. We are
pleased to support S. 1211.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
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 S. 1211, 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):
Public Law 104-20, 109 Stat. 255, 256
* * * * * * *
(c) In addition to the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (b) of this section, there are
authorized to be appropriated [$75,000,000 for subsection
202(a)] $175,000,000 for section 202(a), including constructing
the works described in [paragraph 202(a)(6)] paragraph (6) of
section 202(a) and carrying out the measures described in such
paragraph. Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Secretary may
implement the program under [paragraph 202(a)(6)] section
202(a)(6) only to the extent and in such amounts as are
provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
* * * * * * *