[Senate Report 109-164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 265
109th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    109-164

======================================================================
 
        DESCHUTES RIVER CONSERVANCY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

                October 27, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 166]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 166) to amend the Oregon Resource 
Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize the participation of 
the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy, 
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. 166 is to reauthorize the participation 
of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy 
through FY 2015. It also updates references to the Deschutes 
River Conservancy Working Group, redefines a quorum, and 
authorizes appropriations.

                          Background and Need

    The Deschutes River Conservancy, previously referred to as 
the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, was originally authorized 
in 1996 as a 5-year pilot project (P.L. 104-208). It was 
reauthorized by Congress in 2000 (P.L. 106-270). The Deschutes 
drains Oregon's high desert along the eastern front of the 
Cascade Mountains and eventually flows into the Columbia River. 
The Deschutes River Conservancy was created to bring together 
diverse interests within the Basin, including irrigators, 
tribes, ranchers, environmentalists, businesses, local 
officials, and State and Federal agencies, in order to resolve 
potential conflicts and avoid crises over water allocation like 
that which occurred in the Klamath Basin in 2001.
    The Conservancy has worked to develop project criteria and 
identify potential projects for the benefit of water quality, 
water quantity, fish passage, and habitat improvement. Projects 
are selected by consensus and there is a 50-50 cost share 
component. The Conservancy has employed such mechanisms as 
voluntary, market-based programs to restore streamflows in the 
Deschutes Basin. It has worked to improve habitat and water 
quality in the Deschutes River. It has also planted more than 
100,000 trees and installed 40 miles of riparian fencing.
    The existing authorization provides up to $2 million for 
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Funding is provided 
through the Bureau of Reclamation, the lead Federal agency.

                          Legislative History

    S. 166 was introduced by Senators Smith and Wyden on 
January 25, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources. The Water and Power Subcommittee held a 
hearing on S. 166 on April 19, 2005 (S. Hrg. 109-96). At the 
business meeting on September 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources ordered S. 166 favorably reported without 
amendment.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on September 28, 2005, by unanimous vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 166.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 sets forth the short title.
    Section 2 amends Section 301 of the Oregon Resource 
Conservation Act: to replace references to the ``Deschutes 
River Basin Working Group'' with the ``Deschutes River 
Conservancy Working Group''; redefine a quorum to mean eight of 
the qualified Working Group members appointed and eligible to 
serve; extend the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in 
the Deschutes River Conservancy through fiscal year 2015; and 
authorize $2 million in appropriations for each of fiscal years 
2006 through 2015.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

S. 166--Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2005

    Summary: S. 166 would authorize the appropriation of $10 
million over the 2006-2010 period, and another $10 million over 
the 2011-2015 period, for ecosystem restoration projects in the 
Deschutes River basin in Oregon. Assuming appropriation of the 
authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 166 
would cost $7 million over the 2005-2010 period, with the 
remaining $13 million to be spent after 2010. Enacting the 
legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    S. 166 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
The bill would benefit local and tribal governments 
participating in the Deschutes River Conservancy by authorizing 
funds for restoration projects. Any costs to governmental 
entities, including matching funds, would result from complying 
with conditions for receiving federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this 
estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts specified in S. 166 will 
be appropriated for each year and that outlays will follow the 
historical spending pattern for similar activities. The 
estimated budgetary impact of S. 166 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--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES TO SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level.............       2       2       2       2       2
Estimated Outlays...............       *       1       2       2       2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = Less than $500,000.

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 166 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit local and tribal 
governments participating in the Deschutes River Conservancy by 
authorizing funds for restoration projects. Any costs 
associated to governmental entities, including matching funds, 
would result from complying with conditions for receiving 
federal assistance.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Milberg; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera.
    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. 166.
    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. 166, as ordered reported.

                        Executive Communications

    The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior at 
the Subcommittee hearing on S. 166 follows:

 Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of Reclamation, U.S. 
                       Department of the Interior

    Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 
William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of Reclamation. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify on S. 166.
    This legislation would amend the Oregon Resource 
Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize the participation of 
the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy 
(DRC). The Bureau does not oppose S. 166. However, in these 
lean budget times the Bureau must focus its scarce resources on 
its core mission of delivering water and generating power, and 
on aging infrastructure and O&M for existing Reclamation 
projects, therefore is not likely that the Conservancy will be 
a high priority for funding. Regardless of the level of federal 
financial support, we believe the Conservancy's goals of 
improving stream flow and water quality will certainly benefit 
the basin.
    The DRC was originally authorized by Congress in 1996 to 
implement water conservation measures in the Deschutes River 
basin. The DRC is a locally created private, nonprofit 
organization established to restore stream flow and water 
quality in the Deschutes Basin of Central Oregon. The DRC was 
founded by local irrigation districts, the Confederated Tribes 
of the Warm Springs Reservation, environmental conservation 
groups, and other local stakeholders, in an effort to focus on 
practical, incentive-based solutions to the basin's water 
management challenges. The DRC leased over 73 cubic feet per 
second of water in the basin's streams and rivers during the 
2004 irrigation season and has restored nearly 100 miles of 
stream corridor using livestock management techniques, restored 
channel floodplain connectivity, and planted over 100,000 
native plants in the riparian zone.
    The DRC has permanently acquired about 7,259 acre-feet of 
senior water rights in the Deschutes basin that will remain 
instream during critical low flow periods, benefiting fish 
species such as ESA listed bull trout and summer steelhead.
    The Administration does not understand the rationale for 
the provision that would define a quorum as only 8 people, less 
than half of the 19 people appointed to the Conservancy.
    This concludes my statement. I will 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. 166, 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):

                OREGON RESOURCE CONSERVATION ACT OF 1996


               (P.L. 104-208, as amended by P.L. 106-270)


 AN ACT Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1997

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       TITLE III--DESCHUTES BASIN

SEC. 301. DESCHUTES BASIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Working group.--The term ``Working Group'' means 
        the [Deschutes River Basin Working Group] Deschutes 
        River Conservancy Working Group established before the 
        date of enactment of this title, consisting of members 
        nominated by their represented groups, including:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) Quorum.--The term ``quorum'' means one more than 
        half of those qualified Working Group members appointed 
        and eligible to serve.] (5) Quorum.--The term 
        ``quorum'' means 8 of those qualified Working Group 
        members appointed and eligible to serve.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *
          (3) The Bureau of Reclamation shall pay from funds 
        authorized under subsection (h) of this title up to 50 
        percent of the cost of performing any project proposed 
        by the Working Group and approved by the Secretary, up 
        to a total amount of $2,000,000 during each of the 
        fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and up to a total 
        amount of $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years 2006 
        through 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this title $2,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and $2,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2006 through 2015.

                                  
