[Senate Report 108-287]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
Calendar No. 602
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-287
======================================================================
CARPINTERIA AND MONTECITO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE ACT OF
2003
_______
June 25, 2004.--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 H.R. 1648]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the Act (H.R. 1648) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain water distribution systems of the
Cachuma project, California, to the Carpinteria Valley Water
District and the Montecito Water District, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the Act do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 1648, as ordered reported, is to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water
distribution systems of the Cachuma Project, California, to the
Carpinteria Valley Water District and the Montecito Water
District.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
H.R. 1648 authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to transfer
title to certain water distribution systems of the Cachuma
Project to the Carpinteria Valley Water District and the
Montecito Water District. The Carpinteria Valley Water District
and the Montecito Water District have operated and maintained
the facilities proposed for transfer since 1956 and 1995,
respectively. The Districts have worked closely with the Bureau
to meet the necessary requirements relating to the transfer. In
addition, the Bureau has entered into title transfer agreements
with both Districts.
The bill proposes to transfer the distribution system
located in Carpinteria, California, to the Carpinteria Valley
Water District. This system consists of 36 miles of pipelines
and laterals; Gobernador Reservoir; Shephard Mesa Tank; Lateral
10L, Carpinteria and Shephard Mesa pumping plants; several
pressure regulating vaults located throughout the system;
fences and structures; and rights-of-way, easements, leases and
other property permitting access to the Federal system. It is
the Committee's understanding that the Carpinteria Valley Water
District has made all required payments on its contract with
the Bureau for construction of the Carpinteria system.
The bill also proposes to transfer the distribution
facilities located in Montecito, California, to the Montecito
Water District. These facilities consist of 9\1/2\ miles of
pipelines and laterals; the Asegra Pumping Plant; Ortega Ridge
Pumping Plant located on Ortega Ridge Road; pressure regulating
vaults, fences and structures appurtenant to the distribution
system; and rights-of-way, easements, leases, and other
property permitting access to the Federal system. It is the
Committee's understanding that the Montecito Water District
will pay the remaining debt on its contract with the Bureau for
construction of the Montecito system as a condition of
conveyance.
The proposed transfer would apply only to lands and
facilities associated with these facilities and would not
affect the Districts' existing water service contract with the
Santa Barbara County Water Agency nor the Federal Government's
receipts from water deliveries under the contract. Also, the
proposed transfer does not entail any new physical modification
or expansion of the infrastructure.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 1648, the Carpinteria and Montecito Water Distribution
Systems Conveyance Act of 2003, was introduced by
Representative Capps (D-CA) on April 7, 2003, and referred to
the House Committee on Resources. The Resources Committee
discharged the bill on November 17, 2003, and the House passed
it under suspension on the same day. On November 18, 2003, H.R.
1648 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. A hearing on H.R. 1648 was
conducted by the Water and Power Subcommittee on May 19, 2004.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on June 16, 2004,
by a unanimous vote of a quorum present, favorably reported
H.R. 1648.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an
open business session on June 16, 2004, by a unanimous voice
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R.
1648.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 contains the short title.
Section 2(a)(1) authorizes the Secretary to convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in the
Carpinteria Distribution System of the Cachuma Project in
California, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth
in Transfer Agreement Number 00-XC-20-0364.
Subsection (a)(2) authorizes the Secretary to convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in the
Montecito Water Distribution System of the Cachuma Project in
California, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth
in Transfer Agreement Number 01-XC-20-0365.
Subsection (b) exempts the United States from liability for
any damages relating to the distribution systems, except for
damages caused by acts of negligence committed by the United
States, its employees, or agents prior to the date of
conveyance.
Subsection (c)(1) prohibits the conveyed water distribution
systems from being considered part of a Federal reclamation
project.
Subsection (c)(2) prohibits the water districts from being
eligible to receive any benefits for any facility comprising
such distribution systems, except benefits that would be
available to a similarly situated person for such a facility
that is not part of a Federal reclamation project.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of the costs of this measure has
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
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 H.R. 1648, the
Carpinteria and Montecito Water Distribution Systems Conveyance
Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
Middleton.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Robinson
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1648--Carpinteria and Montecito Water Distribution Systems
Conveyance Act of 2003
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1648 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. This act would direct
the Secretary of the Interior to convey all rights, title, and
interest of the federal government in the Carpinteria
Distribution System to the Carpinteria Valley Water District
and in the Montecito Water Distribution System to the Montecito
Water District. Both of these water distribution systems are
part of the Cachuma Project in Santa Barbara County,
California.
The Carpinteria Valley Water District has made all required
payments on its contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for
construction of the Carpinteria system. The Montecito Water
District still owes about $7,000 for construction of its water
distribution system and would be required to pay that sum as a
condition of conveyance. Currently, the bureau spends less than
$5,000 every three years to inspect these water distribution
systems. The next inspections will take place in 2005. Once
these systems are conveyed, all operations and maintenance
(including inspections) would be the responsibility of the
districts.
H.R. 1648 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.
Enacting H.R. 1648 would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
On November 7, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 1648 as ordered reported by the House Committee on
Resources on October 29, 2003. The two versions of the
legislation are identical, as are our cost estimates.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Julie Middleton.
This estimate was 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 H.R. 1648. The Act is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing government-established standards or
significant 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 H.R. 1648.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
On June 16, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior setting forth executive views on H.R. 1648. This
report had not been received at the time the report on H.R.
1648 was filed. When the report becomes available, the Chairman
will request that it be printed in the Congressional Record for
the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the Bureau
of Reclamation at the Subcommittee hearing follows:
Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
Good afternoon, I am John Keys, Commissioner of
Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to provide the
Administration's views on H.R. 1648, legislation to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federally-owned
water distribution systems of the Cachuma Project in California
to the Carpinteria Water Valley District and the Montecito
Water District. We strongly support this legislation and
applaud the committee for considering it today.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 1648 would actually authorize two
distinct title transfers, both of which are reflected in
separate agreements that can be executed as soon as the
authorizing legislation is adopted.
The proposed transfers would include the following
facilities:
Carpinteria: The distribution system located in the City of
Carpinteria, California. This system consists of 36 miles of
pipelines and laterals; Gobernador Reservoir; Shephard Mesa
Tank; Lateral 10L, Carpinteria and Shephard Mesa pumping
plants; several pressure regulating vaults located throughout
the system; fences and structures; and rights-of-way,
easements, leases and other property permitting access to the
Federal system.
Montecito: These facilities, located in Montecito,
California consist of 9\1/2\ miles of pipelines and laterals;
the Asegra Pumping Plant (a deactivated pumping plant connected
to a portion of lateral 3 located on Asegra Road); Ortega Ridge
Pumping Plant located on Ortega Ridge Road; pressure regulating
vaults, fences and structures appurtenant to the distribution
system; and rights-of-way, easements, leases, and other
property permitting access to the Federal system.
The transfer would apply only to lands and facilities
associated with these facilities and would not affect the
Districts' existing water service contract with the Santa
Barbara County Water Agency nor the Federal government receipts
from water deliveries under that contract.
Anticipated Benefits of These Title Transfers: We believe
that these title transfers will enable the districts to gain
greater local control of the distribution facilities that were
constructed for their use. It will also eliminate the need for
duplicative and unnecessary administrative obligations that
exist for the Districts based upon the fact that title to the
facilities is held by the United States. Once title is
transferred, the district will no longer have to seek approval
for easements, crossing permits, or any work on the facilities,
required while these facilities are Federally owned.
For Reclamation, while we currently expend limited
resources on these facilities, there is an important benefit as
well. Upon title transfer, periodic inspections and the
processing of paperwork that is currently required by
Reclamation will no longer be necessary. We can redirect our
resources to other priority activities.
Title Transfer Processes: The successful processes that we
went through to complete these two title transfers have been
cooperative, smooth, efficient and--most importantly--cost
effective. The relationship and the process is a model for
others to follow. Let me outline how that went:
Carpinteria: On March 4, 1999, the Carpinteria Valley Water
District requested title to the distribution system referenced
above, which they have operated and maintained since 1956. Upon
receipt of that request, Reclamation and the District developed
an agreement on responsibilities and costs for carrying out the
title transfer process, spelling out who is responsible for
which activities and how costs are distributed. The District
and Reclamation signed it in December 1999.
On April 25, 2000, Reclamation and the District jointly
held a public scoping session to solicit comments on the
proposed transfer of ownership from United States to the
District. No issues were identified.
Subsequently the District in consultation with Reclamation,
completed activities pursuant to NEPA, the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, (FWCA). On August 30,
2000, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued.
On September 19, 2000, in Carpinteria, California,
Reclamation and the District held a public negotiation session
to develop a title transfer agreement for the Federally-owned
facilities (Agreement No. 00-XC-20-0364), which spells out the
terms and conditions of this title transfer and is the basis of
this section of the legislation.
Montecito: The process with the facilities to be
transferred to the Montecito Water District resembled the one
for Carpinteria.
On March 23, 1999, the Montecito Water District contacted
Reclamation to formally request title to the distribution
system used exclusively by them and which they have operated
and maintained since 1995, when they assumed responsibility
from the Summerland County Water District, who had operated the
system since 1956.
In April 2000, the District signed a letter of agreement
with Reclamation to address costs and responsibilities for the
title transfer process.
On November 29, 2000, Reclamation and the District jointly
held a public scoping session to solicit comments on the
proposed transfer of ownership from United States to the
District. No issues were identified.
Subsequently, the District, in consultation with
Reclamation, completed activities pursuant to NEPA, the NHPA,
the ESA, and the FWCA. On August 6, 2001 a FONSI was issued.
On March 15, 2001, in Montecito California, Reclamation and
the District held a public negotiation session to develop a
title transfer agreement for the Federally-owned facilities
(Agreement No. 01-XC-20-0365), which spells out the terms and
conditions of this title transfer, which is the basis of the
transfer of these facilities in the legislation.
On March 26, 2001, the proposed draft Agreement was made
available for a 30-day public review and comment period. No
comments were received.
On April 24, 2002, Representative Capps asked Reclamation
to help draft legislation to implement both the Carpinteria and
Montecito agreements. On April 29, 2002, the Department of the
Interior provided such a drafting service to Representative
Capps.
General Background on Reclamation's Title Transfer Activities
Having explained why Reclamation fully supports H.R. 1648
and feels ready to carry it out, may I briefly update the
committee on Reclamation's recent title transfer activities.
Since 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation has transferred title
to sixteen projects or parts of projects across the west--
pursuant to various Acts of Congress. Of those sixteen,
Reclamation has been given authority by Congress to transfer
title to thirteen projects or parts of projects since 2000,
including the transfer of facilities and lands to the Fremont-
Madison Irrigation District in Idaho which was passed by this
Congress and signed into law by the President on September 30,
2003. Since each project is unique, each of the laws enacted by
Congress has different terms, and each requires that different
actions--such as the completion of the process under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or agreements with
State and local agencies over recreation or cultural resources
management be taken prior to transfer.
I am pleased to say that Reclamation has been moving
expeditiously to implement each of these laws. Since May 2001,
Reclamation has transferred nine projects, or parts of
projects. This means that only three of the transfers that are
currently authorized have yet to be implemented. Of those
three, one (Humboldt) was adopted late in the 107th Congress,
one (Wellton Mohawk) required that an EIS be completed and the
transfer is expected to be completed in 2005, and one (Fremont-
Madison) was adopted in the 108th Congress and is moving
forward on schedule.
It is important to note that each of the completed
transfers was done on time or ahead of our schedule and within
the budgets that we estimated when we started. I commend the
hard work and cooperation we have received from the water
districts and entities who have been the recipients of these
facilities as well as the other stakeholders who have been
involved. I am also gratified by our staff's dedication to
completing these transfers in a timely and cost-effective way.
conclusion
As I conclude my remarks Madam Chairman, I would like to
commend several people who worked hard to make these transfers
possible. I would like to thank Representative Capps for
working closely with us and with the District to move this
legislation forward. Charles Hamilton, General Manager and
Secretary of the Carpinteria Valley Water District, and Fred
Adjarian of the Montecito Water District were absolutely
instrumental in making this happen. They were creative and
cooperative in identifying and solving issues even before they
became controversial or problematic. Sheryl Carter from
Reclamation's South Central California Area Office did an
outstanding job coordinating this entire process for
Reclamation.
In summary, Madam Chairman, we strongly support passage of
H.R. 1648. It is a good bill, a good title transfer, and
provides a benefit to both the Districts and to Reclamation. I
urge the Committee to move this legislation.
That concludes my testimony; I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
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 Act H.R. 1648 as
ordered reported.