[Senate Report 106-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        Calendar No. 45

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session                    SENATE                          106-18

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



 
             PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

                 March 17, 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. 243]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 243) to authorize the construction of the 
Perkins County Rural Water System and authorize financial 
assistance to the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a 
nonprofit corporation, in the planning and construction of the 
water supply system, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                         purpose of the measure

    The purpose of S. 243, as ordered reported, is to authorize 
grants for the construction of a rural water system in Perkins 
County, South Dakota.

                          background and need

    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 of reasonable quality and 
those that are available do not meet minimum health and safety 
standards. In 1982 a study was undertaken on the feasibility of 
building a system that could connect with the proposed 
Southwest Pipeline Project in North Dakota, a part of the 
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. Under the North Dakota 
Century Law, a Perkins County connection was included under the 
original authorization for the Southwest Water Authority. In 
the early 1990's, South Dakota provided the funds for a 
feasibility study on an 80-20 match with the County. The 
feasibility study was completed in 1994 and showed that 
obtaining water from the Southwest Water Authority was the most 
feasible option and that the system would cost approximately 
$20 million. As part of the original agreement with North 
Dakota, Perkins County would be able to obtain water at the 
operation and maintenance cost if it furnished about $5.5 
million to increase the pipe capacity to provide 400 gallons/
minute. Since Southwest is an ongoing project, $440,000 was 
provided in 1996 and $550,000 in 1997. An additional $4.5 
million will need to be provided to North Dakota during 
construction of the Perkins County connection to reimburse work 
already completed. The legislation provides for a 75-25 
Federal-local cost share with a total authorization of $15 
million.

                          legislative history

    S. 243 was introduced on January 19, 1999 by Senator 
Johnson. S. 243 is identical to the version of S. 2117 that 
passed the Senate in the 105th Congress. A hearing was held on 
S. 2117 by the Subcommittee on Water and Power on July 14, 1998 
and the bill was ordered reported by the Committee on September 
23, 1998. (Report 105-368) S. 2117 passed the Senate by 
Unanimous Consent on October 7, 1998.
    At its business meeting on March 4, 1999, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 243 favorably reported.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on March 4, 1999, by a unanimous voice vote of 
a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 243, as 
described herein.

                      section-by-section analysis

    Section 1 provides a short title.
    Section 2 provides a series of findings and purposes.
    Section 3 provides a series of definitions.
    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 (b) defines the service area as Perkins County, 
South Dakota.
    Subsection (c) provides that grants may not exceed the 
Federal share (which is defined as 75% under section 9).
    Subsection (d) prohibits any obligation of funds until 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act are met 
and a final engineering report is submitted to and lays before 
Congress for 90 days. The inclusion of a provision providing 
that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
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 provides standard language on mitigation for fish 
and wildlife losses.
    Section 6(a) provides that the Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA) will make power available for pumping 
from Pick-Sloan power designated for future irrigation and 
drainage pumping.
    Subsection (b) makes the provision of power contingent on 
the system being operated on a not-for-profit basis, that the 
power be purchased from a qualified preference customer of 
WAPA, the rate schedule be the firm power rate at the time of 
delivery by WAPA, and that the preference customer pass through 
the firm rate, adding only other customary and usual charges.
    Section 7 provides that the Act does not affect any other 
water project in North or South Dakota.
    Section 8 provides a series of savings provisions on water 
rights.
    Section 9 provides that the Federal share will be 75% of 
costs.
    Section 10 provides that the local share will be 25% of 
costs.
    Section 11 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide construction oversight and limitsexpenditures by the 
Secretary to 3% of the construction budget.
    Section 12 authorizes $15 million subject to appropriate 
engineering cost indices.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

    The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 11, 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. 243, 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 Gary Brown 
(for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state and 
local impact.
            Sincerely,
                                          Dan L. Crippen, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

S. 243--Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999

    Summary: S. 243 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 S. 243 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.
    S. 243 contains no intergovernmental 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 S. 243 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: 
S. 243 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 mandate as defined in UMRA.

                      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. 243. 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. 243, as ordered reported.

                        executive communications

    On March 11, 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. 243. These reports 
had not been received at the time the report on S. 243 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.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 243, as ordered 
reported.

                                
