[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).
* * * * * * *