[House Report 106-633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-633
======================================================================
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 2000
_______
May 23, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 297]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 297) to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and
Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for
the planning and construction of the water supply system, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
TITLE I--LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark Rural Water System
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' means
the study entitled ``Feasibility Level Evaluation of a Missouri
River Regional Water Supply for South Dakota, Iowa and
Minnesota'', dated September 1993, that includes a water
conservation plan, environmental report, and environmental
enhancement component.
(2) Incremental cost.--The term ``incremental cost'' means
the cost of the savings to the project were the city of Sioux
Falls not to participate in the water supply system.
(3) Member entity.--The term ``member entity'' means a rural
water system or municipality that meets the requirements for
membership as defined by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water
System, Inc. bylaws, dated September 6, 1990.
(4) Project construction budget.--The term ``project
construction budget'' means the description of the total amount
of funds needed for the construction of the water supply
project, as contained in the feasibility study.
(5) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The
term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' means
all power requirements that are necessary for the operation of
intake facilities, pumping stations, water treatment
facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines up to the point of
delivery of water by the water supply system to each member
entity that distributes water at retail to individual users.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(7) Water supply project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``water supply project''
means the physical components of the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water Project.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``water supply project''
includes--
(i) necessary pumping, treatment, and
distribution facilities;
(ii) pipelines;
(iii) appurtenant buildings and property
rights;
(iv) electrical power transmission and
distribution facilities necessary for services
to water systems facilities; and
(v) such other pipelines, pumping plants, and
facilities as the Secretary considers necessary
and appropriate to meet the water supply,
economic, public health, and environment needs
of the member entities (including water storage
tanks, water lines, and other facilities for
the member entities).
(8) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system''
means the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit
corporation established and operated substantially in
accordance with the feasibility study.
SEC. 103. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the water supply
system for the planning and construction of the water supply project.
(b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide for the
member entities safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial
water supplies, mitigation of wetland areas, and water conservation
in--
(1) Lake County, McCook County, Minnehaha County, Turner
County, Lincoln County, Clay County, and Union County, in
southeastern South Dakota;
(2) Rock County and Nobles County, in southwestern Minnesota;
and
(3) Lyon County, Sioux County, Osceola County, O'Brien
County, Dickinson County, and Clay County, in northwestern
Iowa.
(c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under subsection (a) to
the water supply system shall not exceed the amount of funds authorized
under section 108.
(d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The Secretary
shall not obligate funds for the construction of the water supply
project until--
(1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met; and
(2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water
conservation program are prepared and submitted to the Congress
not less than 90 days before the commencement of construction
of the water supply project.
SEC. 104. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result of the
construction and operation of the water supply project shall be on an
acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological equivalency, concurrent with
project construction, as provided in the feasibility study.
SEC. 105. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.
(a) In General.--From power designated for future irrigation and
drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, the Western
Area Power Administration shall make available, at the firm power rate,
the capacity and energy required to meet the pumping and incidental
operational requirements of the water supply project during the period
beginning on May 1 and ending on October 31 of each year.
(b) Qualification To Use Pick-Sloan Power.--For operation during the
period beginning May 1 and ending October 31 of each year, for as long
as the water supply system operates on a not-for-profit basis, the
portions of the water supply project constructed with assistance under
this title shall be eligible to receive firm power from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin program established by section 9 of the Act of December
22, 1944 (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 887), popularly known as the Flood
Control Act of 1944.
SEC. 106. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.
This title does not limit the authorization for water projects in the
States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota under law in effect on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 107. WATER RIGHTS.
Nothing in this title--
(1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an interstate
compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated share
of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, whether
determined by past or future interstate compacts or by past or
future legislative or final judicial allocations;
(3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or
interstate compact, governing water quality or disposal; or
(4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to exercise
any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to any ground
water resource.
SEC. 108. COST SHARING.
(a) Federal Cost Share.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall provide funds equal to 80 percent of--
(A) the amount allocated in the total project
construction budget for planning and construction of
the water supply project under section 103; and
(B) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases
in development costs reflected in appropriate
engineering cost indices after September 1, 1993.
(2) Sioux falls.--The Secretary shall provide funds for the
city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in an amount equal to 50
percent of the incremental cost to the city of participation in
the project.
(b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
non-Federal share of the costs allocated to the water supply
system shall be 20 percent of the amounts described in
subsection (a)(1).
(2) Sioux falls.--The non-Federal cost-share for the city of
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be 50 percent of the
incremental cost to the city of participation in the project.
SEC. 109. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.
(a) Authorization.--At the request of the water supply system, the
Secretary may allow the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide project
construction oversight to the water supply project for the service area
of the water supply system described in section 103(b).
(b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds used by
the Commissioner of Reclamation for oversight described in subsection
(a) shall not exceed the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the
amount provided in the total project construction budget for the entire
project construction period.
SEC. 110. PROJECT OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY.
The water supply system shall retain title to all project facilities
during and after construction, and shall be responsible for all
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs of the
project.
SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title
$213,887,700, to remain available until expended.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and
Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for
the planning and construction of the water supply system.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 297 is to authorize the construction of
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize
assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a
nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the
water supply system, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is designed to
provide replacement or supplemental water supplies from the
Missouri River to areas in southeastern South Dakota,
northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota serving about
180,000 people, of which approximately 150,000 reside in the
Sioux Falls metropolitan area. The estimated cost of the
project is $283 million in 1993 dollars, with a 10% State share
and 10% local cost share based on a willingness to pay
analysis. Sioux Falls will pay 50% of the incremental cost to
its participation in the project. The water would be diverted
from the Missouri river near Vermillion, South Dakota, treated
and distributed through approximately 400 miles of piping with
a series of storage reservoirs and pumping stations.
One of the reasons why many South Dakotans have proposed
this $283 million project dates back to the development of the
Pick-Sloan Program, and the loss of South Dakota farm land for
downstream flood protection. South Dakota lost approximately
520,000 acres of land to flooding while downstream states have
received protection for approximately 552,000 acres of land. In
addition to downstream states benefitting from flood
protection, South Dakota has been a recipient of flood
protection from the Pick-Sloan program. This aspect of the
Pick-Sloan program is referenced as an important part of their
flood protection in the following manner on the State of South
Dakota homepage (http://www.state.sd.us/deca/cultural/
soc__hist.htm):
1952--A major flood on the Missouri River proves the
wisdom of the Pick-Sloan Act. Flood damage is severe in
Pierre, with much of the town inundated. The flood
causes damage all through South Dakota and in
downstream states. The severity of the flood provided
additional justification for construction of the Oahe
Dam.
In addition to the flood protection benefits South Dakota
has realized with the Pick-Sloan system, they have also
received several other benefits including, low-cost federal
power, recreation, fish and wildlife benefits and some
municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) and irrigation
benefits.
In all, Congress has authorized $1.8 billion in Pick-
Sloan water projects, with approximately $500 million
for MR&I projects in South Dakota over the last 25
years.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation concerns
Although the Bureau of Reclamation participated in the
planning and willingness to pay analyses and agreed with the
need for a project to meet both supply and water quality needs,
the Administration has opposed the legislation since the 103rd
Congress due to the cost share, overall cost, the inclusion of
Sioux Falls within the project, and the addition of two non-
reclamation states for Bureau of Reclamation funding. At a
Senate hearing on the Lewis and Clark Project, on May 27, 1999,
then Assistant Secretary for Water and Science for the
Department of Interior, Patricia Beneke, stated that:
The Department's long-standing policy relative to
non-Indian municipal and rural water system development
is that non-Federal interests should repay 100 percent
of allocated project construction costs at current
interest rates, and that they pay 100 percent of
operation and maintenance costs. In addition, urban
areas like Sioux Falls should have a sufficient
population base and economic resources to finance its
own water system.
South Dakota water projects
In 1963 the Department of Interior submitted the Report on
Financial Position, Missouri River Basin Project. The Report
presented a financial plan to ensure the financial integrity of
the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Project (P-SMBP) and reaffirmed
the Ultimate Development Plan concept--i.e. that storage and
pumping power facilities were built largely for the ultimate
benefit of the irrigation projects, including those not yet
built, but planned to be built at some later time. The report
also recommended the reduction of the planned irrigation
development by 1.3 million acres. In 1964 Congress adopted
Public Law 88-442 (the Missouri River Basin Appropriation Act)
which implemented the report's recommendations and also
required that any individual P-SMBP projects that were not
under construction as of June 30, 1964, be reauthorized before
federal funds could be appropriated for project construction.
Since adoption of Public Law 88-442, nine projects have been
reauthorized, including three in South Dakota. The reauthorized
projects in South Dakota are: 1. The Pollack-Herried Unit; 2.
The Lake Andes-Wagner Unit; and 3. The Oahe Unit.
To date, 92 of the originally envisioned irrigation
projects and facilities remain undeveloped. Of these, 16
projects are in South Dakota.
South Dakota reclamation projects authorized and built
since 1944:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Project Completed authorized Cost share
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keyhole........................... 1952........................ (\1\) Repayment contract.
Rapid Valley (Pactola)............ 1956........................ (\1\) Repayment contract.
Rapid Valley (Deerfield).......... 1947........................ (\1\) Repayment contract.
Angostura......................... 1949........................ (\1\) Repayment contract.
Shadehill......................... 1950........................ (\1\) Repayment contract.
Oahe.............................. (\2\)....................... ................ ............................
WEB............................... 1991........................ $88,000,000 75% grant.
25% loan.
Mid Dakota (34% complete)......... Ongoing..................... 137,000,000 85% grant.
15% loan.
Mni Wiconi........................ Ongoing..................... 314,070,000 80% grant.
20% loan.
------------------
Total....................... ............................ $1,839,070,000 ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authorized as part of Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program--not authorized individually--estimated total in
excess of $1.3 billion as of 1994.
\2\Oahe Dam completed, Oahe irrigation was started, not finished, and is not anticipated to be finished.
In addition to the benefits that South Dakota has received
under the Pick-Sloan Program, the federal government made
payments to South Dakota residents at the time their lands were
inundated by the Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The issue, however, has
been revisited. Currently, there are financial compensation
bills pending before Congress for South Dakota residents that
lost land because of the construction of Pick-Sloan reservoirs.
Many of the inundated Pick-Sloan Project lands were tribal
lands, thus several bills have been considered, and passed,
regarding tribal compensation for these lands. On November 8,
1999, the Senate passed S. 964 which provides an additional
$290 million as compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
(CRST) of South Dakota for the acquisition by the United States
of 104,492 acres of land of the Tribe for the Oahe Dam and
Reservoir on the Missouri River. The CRST lands represent about
20% of the lands inundated for Pick-Sloan projects. The
following is an excerpt from Senate Report 106-217.
It was not until 1954 that the Congress enacted
legislation to provide compensation to the Tribe in
exchange for the acquisition of the Tribe's lands. In
settlement negotiations prior to enactment of this
legislation, the CRST requested some $23.5 million as a
compensation for lands taken and rehabilitation of
tribal standards of living. However, the legislation
authorized the payment of only $10.6 million for
damages, rehabilitation and administrative expenses
related to the settlement, less than half of what the
Tribe requested and documented. As a rough indicator of
under-compensation to the Tribe, non-Indians received
an average of $49.22 per acre for their agricultural
lands, while the Tribe received only $21.49 per acre.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 297 was introduced on January 6, 1999, by Congressman
John Thune (R-SD). H.R. 297 was referred to the Committee on
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water
and Power. On May 17, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to
consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further
consideration of the measure by unanimous consent. Congressman
John Doolittle (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the markup which included the following
changes:
1. An assurance that the water supply system will
retain title to all project facilities during and after
construction, and shall be responsible for all
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
costs of the project.
2. A reduction of the federal authorization by
$10,100,000 by eliminating the environmental
enhancement component of the project.
3. Language that permits the water supply system, as
long as it operates on a not-for-profit basis, to be
eligible to receive firm power from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program.
4. An amendment to the title to read: ``A bill to
authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis
and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit
corporation, for the planning and construction of the
water supply system.''.
The Doolittle amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill
was then ordered reported, as amended, by voice vote to the
House of Representatives.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS REPORTED
Section 101. Short title
The short title of the bill is ``The Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System Act of 2000''.
Section 102. Definitions
This Section provides definitions of terms used in the bill
including: ``Project Construction Budget'', ``Pumping and
Incidental Operational Requirements'', ``Water Supply Project''
and others.
Section 103. Federal assistance for the water supply system
This Section requires the Secretary of Interior to make
grants to the water supply system for the planning and
construction of the project and designates the counties to be
included in the system. It further limits the use of funds
until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) are met and a final engineering report and plan are
submitted to Congress.
Section 104. Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses
This Section sets forth the criteria for mitigation fish
and wildlife losses.
Section 105. Use of Pick-Sloan power
This Section sets forth the requirements for the Western
Area Power Administration regarding the delivery of capacity
and energy for the system. The Committee expects that the
capacity and energy marketed by the Western Area Power
Administration to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will
be delivered through a preference power entity.
Section 106. No limitation on water project in states
This Section clarifies intent with regard to authorization
of water projects in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota.
Section 107. Water rights
This Section clarifies that nothing in this Title is
intended to affect existing water rights.
Section 108. Cost sharing
This Section sets forth the cost sharing requirements for
the states and for the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Section 109. Bureau of Reclamation
This Section provides for the involvement of the Bureau of
Reclamation in project construction oversight.
Section 110. Project ownership and responsibility
This Section makes clear that the water supply system is to
retain title to all project facilities during and after
construction and shall be responsible for all operation,
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs of the project.
The Committee does not intend for Section 110 of this bill
to prohibit the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System (LCRWS) from
qualifying for other forms of federal financial or technical
assistance for which LCRWS would otherwise qualify, as LCRWS
may pursue such assistance in carrying out its responsibilities
once a given portion of the system is completed.
Section 111. Authorization of appropriations
This Section authorizes appropriations of $213,887,700.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
constitutional authority statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
compliance with house rule xiii
1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act.--As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings.--Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 297, Lewis and
Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Applebaum.
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 297--Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000
Summary: H.R. 297 would authorize the appropriation of $214
million to the Department of the Interior (DOI) to make grants
to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System for the construction
of a drinking water supply project. The Lewis and Clark Rural
Water System is a group of cities and rural areas in
southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern
Minnesota. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 297 would cost $60 million
over the 2001-2005 period with the rest of the authorized
spending coming after 2005.
Enactment of H.R. 297 would not affect direct spending or
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or 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 H.R. 297 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--
--------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization level................................................ 214 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays.................................................. 1 2 9 24 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the full amount of the authorization will be
provided in fiscal year 2001. Our estimate of the amounts
needed over the 2001-2005 period to begin construction of this
drinking water system is based on information from the local
water system and historical spending rates for similar
projects. Completion of this project is expected to take about
12 years.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 297 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. The bill would require that the nonfederal share of
project costs 20 percent, except for the incremental cost of
participation in the project by the city of Sioux Falls. The
city would be required to pay 50 percent of that cost. Any
state or local governments choosing to participate in the
project authorized by this bill would do so on a voluntary
basis, and any costs that they might incur would be accepted by
them on that basis.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On August 2, 1999, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 233, the Lewis and Clark Rural Water
System Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources on July 28, 1999. S. 244 is
very similar to H.R. 297; however, the Senate bill would
authorize the appropriation of $224 million, which is $10
million more than the amount in the House bill.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Rachel Applebaum;
Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie
Miller; Impact on the private sector: Natalie Tawil.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
compliance with public law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
preemption of state, local or tribal law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
APPENDIX
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Tom: Thank you for your letter regarding your
Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 297, the Lewis and
Clark Rural Water System Act.
I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdiction over certain
sections of this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in
moving the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree that
your decision to forego further action on the bill will not
prejudice the Commerce Committee with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, and
will support your request for conferees on those provisions
within the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction should they be
the subject of a House-Senate conference. I will also include a
copy of your letter and this response in the Congressional
Record when the legislation is considered by the House.
Thank you again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Don: I am writing with regard to H.R. 297, the Lewis
and Clark Rural Water System Act. As you know, rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives grant the Committee on
Commerce jurisdiction over the generation and marketing of
power, as well as public health and quarantine. Accordingly,
legislation setting rates for electric power, as well as
legislation amending or implementing the Safe Drinking Water
Act fall within the Committee's jurisdiction.
Section 7 of H.R. 297 directs the Western Area Power
Administration to make certain electric capacity available to
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, and establishes a rate
schedule by which such power is to be made available. Further,
section 3 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to
provide grants for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System,
which falls within the definition of a ``public water system''
as defined by section 1401(a)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, and is subject to regulation under such Act. Finally,
section 5(b) of the legislation requires the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System to establish ``low consumption performance
standards for all newly installed plumbing fixtures.'' Such
fixtures are already regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to authority granted by 1455 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and part B of title III of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act.
Because of the importance of this legislation, I recognize
your desire to bring it before the House in an expeditious
manner, and I will not exercise the Committee's right to a
sequential referral. By agreeing to waive its consideration of
the bill, however, the Committee on Commerce does not waive its
jurisdiction over H.R. 297. In addition, the Commerce Committee
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of
the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I
ask for your commitment to support any request by the Commerce
Committee for conferees on H.R. 297 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter and your response in
your committee report on the bill and as part of the Record
during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Contracts of all Federal government agencies contain
specific labor standards. These standards are requirements of
law and their fundamental purpose is to set forth minimum
working standards on all Federal government construction work.
It is expected that the Bureau of Reclamation's performance
requirements and any agreements made with the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water Systems, Inc., for payment of the Federal share of
project costs will provide for full compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including the Davis-Bacon Act
(40 U.S.C. Sec. 276a), which requires weekly payment of
laborers and mechanics at not less than the wage rates and
fringe benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor to be
prevailing in the area.
By requiring that workers on federal construction projects
such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System are paid wages
and provided benefits that are up to community standards,
Davis-Bacon protects working families by ensuring payment of
decent wages and providing for health insurance coverage.
It is my understanding that the procedures and rules of the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation
governing the funding and construction of Federal projects such
as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will ensure that the
provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act are applied and rigorously
enforced.
George Miller.