[Senate Report 113-52]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 106
113th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     113-52

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



 
                      PROVO RIVER PROJECT TRANSFER

                                _______
                                

                 June 27, 2013.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 211]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 211) to amend certain definitions 
contained in the Provo River Project Transfer Act for purposes 
of clarifying certain property descriptions, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of S. 211 is to amend certain definitions 
contained in the Provo River Project Transfer Act for the 
purposes of clarifying certain property descriptions.

                          Background and Need

    Built by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 
periodically between 1938 and 1958, the Provo River Project 
(Project) was designed to provide supplemental irrigation water 
for 48,156 acres of highly developed farmlands in Salt Lake, 
Utah, and Wasatch Counties, and additionally provide a domestic 
water supply for American Fork, Lehi, Lindon, Orem, Pleasant 
Grove, Provo, and Salt Lake City, Utah. The Project includes 
Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir on the Provo River, the Salt Lake 
Aqueduct and Terminal Reservoirs, the Murdock Diversion Dam on 
the Provo River, the Provo Reservoir Canal, and several 
transbasin diversion and conveyance facilities. The Aqueduct 
Division is comprised of the Salt Lake Aqueduct and Terminal 
Reservoirs; the remaining features are included in the Deer 
Creek Division.
    In 2004, the 108th Congress passed the Provo River Project 
Transfer Act (P.L. 108-382) which transferred the Project's 
Provo River Canal and the Pleasant Grove Property from 
Reclamation to the Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA). 
A technical change is needed to clarify PRWUA's ownership of 
the facility.

                          Legislative History

    S. 211 was introduced by Senators Hatch and Lee on February 
4, 2013. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
Subcommittee on Water and Power, held a hearing on S. 211 on 
April 16, 2013. At its business meeting on May 16, 2013, the 
Committee ordered S. 211 favorably reported by voice vote.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on May 16, 2013, by a voice vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 211.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 amends section 2(4)(A) of the Provo River 
Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382; 118 Stat. 2212) to clarify 
the terms of conveyance of the Pleasant Grove Property and it 
amends section 2(5) of the Act to clarify the terms of 
conveyance of the Provo Reservoir Canal.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of costs of S. 211 has been provided 
by the Congressional Budget Office:

S. 211--A bill to amend certain definitions contained in the Provo 
        River Project Transfer Act for purposes of clarifying certain 
        property descriptions

    S. 211 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
transfer the title of the water conveyance facilities located 
on the Provo Reservoir to the Provo River Water Users 
Association. Based on information from the Bureau of 
Reclamation, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation 
would affect net direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures apply. However, we expect that those impacts would 
be insignificant. The legislation would not affect revenues.
    The bureau had the authority to transfer the title to the 
Provo Reservoir Canal to the association as the project existed 
in 2004. The facilities have been modified since 2004, so that 
transfer authority no longer applies. S. 211 would direct the 
bureau to transfer the title to the water conveyance facilities 
associated with the Provo Reservoir, including bridges, lands, 
and pipelines. Upon transfer of the title, the association 
would be required to pay, in one lump sum, the present value of 
the remaining costs for construction of the canal and the value 
of receipts that the bureau would no longer collect for issuing 
special-use permits and selling surplus water.
    Based on information from the bureau, if S. 211 is enacted, 
CBO expects that the bureau would transfer the title to the 
Provo Reservoir facilitates in 2014. Upon transfer, the 
association would pay the U.S. Treasury about $700,000. Annual 
offsetting receipts would decrease by about $60,000 because the 
association would no longer make annual payments of about 
$40,000 for the canal's construction cost, and the bureau would 
no longer collect amounts for issuing special-use permits and 
selling surplus water, which total about $20,000 each year. In 
total, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would result 
in a net reduction in direct spending of about $400,000 over 
the 2014-2018 period and $100,000 over the 2014-2023 period.
    S. 211 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Aurora Swanson. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, 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. 211.
    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. 211, as ordered reported.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    S. 211, as reported, does not contain any congressionally 
directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited 
tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules 
of the Senate.

                        Executive Communications

    The testimony provided by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior at the April 16, 2013, Subcommittee on Water and Power 
hearing on S. 211 follows:

   Statement of Robert Quint, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, 
                       Department of the Interior

    Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob 
Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation 
(Reclamation). I am pleased to present the views of the 
Department of the Interior (Department) regarding S. 211, an 
amendment to the Provo River Project Transfer Act (Act) 
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to convey 
the recently-enclosed Provo Reservoir Canal to the Provo River 
Water Users Association (Association). The Department supports 
S. 211.
    A principal feature of the Provo River Project is the Provo 
Reservoir Canal (canal). It extends 22 miles from the mouth of 
Provo Canyon to Salt Lake County. Once it meandered through 
pastures and fields. By the late 1990s, suburban development 
had surrounded it. During this time, the Association concluded 
that owning the canal and associated project features would 
facilitate its ability to obtain financing for its eventual 
enclosure of the canal. Enclosing the canal into pipe offered 
significant potential new benefits in terms of water 
conservation, water quality, in stream flows, public safety and 
upstream recreation.
    In 2004, Congress agreed that transfer of the Provo River 
Project was in the public interest. The Provo River Project 
Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382) was enacted, authorizing the 
transfer to the Association of the Provo Reservoir Canal and 
the site of the Association's Office. It further authorized the 
transfer of the Salt Lake Aqueduct to the Metropolitan Water 
District of Salt Lake and Sandy. The Department supports 
transferring ownership of certain Reclamation project 
facilities to non-Federal entities in cases where transfers 
create benefits for those who take title as well as for other 
stakeholders and the public. For this reason, the Department 
supported passage of the Act in 2004.
    In the years since enactment of the Act, Reclamation has 
conveyed the Salt Lake Aqueduct to the Metropolitan Water 
District of Salt Lake and Sandy. One of the requirements of the 
Act was that all of the water users--including the Association, 
the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the Metropolitan 
District of Salt Lake and Sandy and the Jordan Valley Water 
Conservancy District needed to develop a comprehensive 
agreement to govern the operations, ownership financing and 
improvement of the PRC (Section 3.a.1B of the Act). 
Consequently, following its enactment, the parties began 
meeting regularly to discuss and negotiate the Master 
Agreement. From late 2004 through mid-2009, all of the parties 
acted on the belief that, after the parties reached agreement 
as required in the Act, Reclamation would transfer title and, 
after transfer, the Association would begin the piping of the 
PRC. However, in May of 2009, the Association determined that 
the approach being considered for title transfer, funding, and 
enclosure placed the Association's tax-exempt status in 
jeopardy and threatened the entire project.
    In response, an alternative strategy for the canal portion 
of the transfer was developed by the parties, whereby the 
Association, the partners and Reclamation proceeded with piping 
the canal under Reclamation's operation, maintenance, and 
replacement authority in 2009. Today, crews are constructing a 
recreation trail on the surface of the ground over the piped 
Provo Reservoir Canal. Below the surface, a 10.5-foot-diameter 
pipe continues to convey Provo River Project water.
    Unfortunately, the parties, including Reclamation, moved 
forward with the title-transfer-after-piping option without 
realizing that this sequence was out of compliance with the 
original statutory authority to transfer the Provo Reservoir 
Canal to the Association ``as in existence on the date of 
enactment[.]''. In retrospect, we all should have more 
carefully considered the potential effects of this change in 
the title transfer/construction sequence on title transfer as 
provided for in the Act. That brings us to the need for the 
technical amendments provided by S. 211. This technical 
amendment alters the definition of the Provo Reservoir Canal to 
authorize the transfer of the pipeline as well as to eliminate 
any confusion about the facilities to be transferred. The 
amendment authorizes transfer of the newly constructed pipeline 
by removing the term ``canal'' in the definition and replacing 
it with ``water conveyance facility historically known as the 
Provo Reservoir Canal'', and by eliminating the phrase ``as in 
existence on the date of enactment of this Act.'' The bill also 
directs the transfer of ``all associated bridges, fixtures, 
structures, facilities, lands, interests in land, and rights-
of-way held'', which Reclamation also supports since 
appurtenant facilities are currently used by the Association.
    The majority of the $150 million cost of piping the canal 
was born by the Association, the Central Utah Water Conservancy 
District, the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, and the 
Provo Reservoir Water Users Company. Federal funding applied to 
the project was $39 million provided by the Central Utah 
Project Completion Act Office. This amount, provided under the 
water conservation provisions of the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act, ensured that 8,000 acre-feet of conserved water 
would be made available to the Secretary to provide in-stream 
flows on the lower Provo River. These flows benefit fish and 
wildlife including the endangered June sucker, a species native 
only to Utah Lake and its tributary streams. Reclamation 
provided no funding to the piping project.
    As a condition of title transfer, the 2004 Act (PL 108-382) 
requires the Association to remit to the United States its 
repayment obligation associated with the canal--the amount it 
continues to owe Reclamation for reimbursement of the original 
costs of construction. This obligation does not change under 
the technical amendment proposed by S. 211.
    Reclamation sees the issue being addressed by S. 211 as 
purely technical. Concurrent to consideration of S. 211, 
Reclamation, the Association and the other partners continue to 
move ahead to complete all the other steps necessary to 
transfer title and believe that with passage of this bill, we 
will be able to move forward expeditiously to finalize this 
title transfer. We continue to support the title transfer and 
the excellent work that has gone on with the enclosure of the 
canal.
    This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to 
answer questions at the appropriate time.

                        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. 211, 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):

                    PROVO RIVER PROJECT TRANSFER ACT


                           Public Law 108-382


  AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain 
            lands and facilities of the Provo River Project

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Pleasant grove property.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``Pleasant Grove 
                Property'' means the 3.79-acre parcel of land 
                acquired by the United States for the Provo 
                River Project, Deer Creek Division, located at 
                approximately 285 West 1100 North, Pleasant 
                Grove, Utah, as in existence on the date [of 
                enactment of this Act] on which the parcel is 
                conveyed under section 3(a)(2).
                  (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Pleasant Grove 
                Property'' includes the office building and 
                shop complex constructed by the Association on 
                the parcel of land described in subparagraph 
                (A).
          (5) Provo reservoir canal.--The term ``Provo 
        Reservoir Canal'' means the [canal, and any associated 
        land, rights-of-way, and facilities] water conveyance 
        facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir 
        Canal and all associated bridges, fixtures, structures, 
        facilities, lands, interests in land, and rights-of-way 
        held acquired, constructed, or improved by the United 
        States as part of the Provo River Project, Deer Creek 
        Division, extending from, and including, the Murdock 
        Diversion Dam and forebay at the mouth of Provo Canyon, 
        Utah, to and including the Provo Reservoir Canal Siphon 
        and Penstock near the Jordan Narrows to the point where 
        water is discharged to the Welby-Jacob Canal and the 
        Utah Lake Distributing Canal, as in existence on the 
        date [of enactment of this Act] on which the Provo 
        Reservoir Canal is conveyed under section 3(a)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
