```

[Senate Report 110-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        Calendar No. 52
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-26

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

 
       SOUTHERN IDAHO BUREAU OF RECLAMATION REPAYMENT ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

               February 16, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 220]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 220) to authorize early repayment of 
obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B 
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                         PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

    The purpose of S. 220 is to authorize early repayment of 
obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B 
Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEED

    Pursuant to section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 
1982 (13 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.), prepayment of reimbursable 
construction costs associated with a Reclamation project is 
prohibited unless the repayment contract between the District 
and the United States allowed for prepayment of the contract at 
the time the Reclamation Reform Act was enacted. While many 
construction cost repayment contracts associated with the 
Minidoka Project had provisions providing for early repayment, 
the contract associated with the A&B Irrigation District did 
not. Additionally, the District is the only irrigation district 
in the Minidoka Project subject to acreage limitations under 
Federal reclamation law. S. 220 will provide consistency 
between landowners within the A&B Irrigation District and those 
within other districts served by the Minidoka Project.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 220 was introduced by Senator Craig on January 9, 2007 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
At its business meeting on January 31, 2007, the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 220 favorably reported.
    During the 109th Congress, the Committee considered similar 
legislation, S. 2470, introduced by Senator Craig on March 29, 
2006. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 
2470 on June 28, 2006 (S. Hrg. 109-677). No further action on 
S. 2470 occurred prior to the sine die adjournment of the 109th 
Congress. A companion measure, H.R. 5666, was considered by the 
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules, and 
passed by a voice vote on December 5, 2006.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 
open business meeting on January 31, 2007, by voice vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 220.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 provides the short title.
    Section 2(a) authorizes land owners within the A&B 
Irrigation District to prepay, at any time, construction costs 
allocable to that landowner.
    Section 2(b) declares that upon full repayment of the 
construction costs allocable to all lands that a landowner owns 
within the District, that those lands will not be subject to 
the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under Federal 
reclamation law.
    Section 2(c) provides that upon the request of a landowner 
that has fully repaid the construction costs allocable to that 
landowner, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide a 
certificate described in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation 
Reform Act of 1982.
    Section 2(d) declares that nothing in the Act modifies any 
contractual rights under, or amends or reopens, the existing 
reclamation contract between the District and the United 
States. Furthermore, nothing modifies any rights, obligations, 
or relationships between the A&B District and the landowners in 
the District under state law.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of 
this measure has been requested but was not received at the 
time the report was filed. When the Congressional Budget Office 
completes its cost estimate, it will be posted on the Internet 
at www.cbo.gov.

                      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. 220. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant responsibilities on private individuals and 
business.
    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. 220.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION

    Because S. 220 is similar to legislation considered in the 
109th Congress, the Committee did not request Executive Agency 
Views. The testimony provided by the Bureau of Reclamation at 
the Subcommittee hearing on S. 2470 in the 109th Congress 
follows:

     Statement of William E. Rinne, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of 
                Reclamation, Department of the Interior

    Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill 
Rinne, Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank 
you for the opportunity to provide the Administration's views 
on S. 2470, the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment 
Act. The bill, which we support with some modifications, would 
authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation District of Idaho.
    The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the 
Minidoka Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation 
provisions of Federal reclamation law. Under section 213 of the 
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), early repayment of a 
district's construction costs is prohibited unless the 
district's repayment contract with Reclamation included a 
provision allowing for early repayment when the RRA was 
enacted.
    At one time, over 50 districts in the Minidoka Project were 
subject to the acreage limitation provisions and many of those 
districts had an early repayment provision in their contracts. 
In order to provide consistency for the landowners in the 
remaining district, we support S. 2470's approach to allow 
early repayment in A&B Irrigation District. However, we 
recommend that the bill be amended in order to ensure 
consistency for all landowners within the project.
    In general, early repayment authority in contracts is 
limited to landowners. In other words, a district cannot pay 
out early; rather, each landowner can decide if his or her land 
should be paid out early. It is Reclamation policy to require 
landowners who want to pay early to pay out all of their land 
in the subject district and not just a portion of their land. 
This concept was included in the recently enacted ``Southern 
Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2005,'' which 
provided early payout authority for two districts in Oregon 
(Public Law 109-38).
    As currently written, S. 2470 can be interpreted to provide 
the opportunity for landowners to pay out either all of their 
land in A&B Irrigation District or a portion of that land. The 
latter is a benefit that other landowners who are subject to 
the acreage limitation provisions simply do not enjoy and would 
inject inconsistency into the administration of the acreage 
limitation provisions. Early payout would accelerate the 
repayment of these project costs to the United States Treasury. 
Where these repayment obligations are not accompanied by 
interest, early repayment has a net positive impact on overall 
repayment to the Treasury and we are highly confident that this 
will be the case under this bill. However, we should note that 
a small number of landowners hold in excess of 960 acres and 
therefore pay full cost. Since full cost has an interest 
component, if these landowners opt to pay out early, this could 
result in slightly lower repayment from those landowners.
    We believe our concerns can be addressed with a simple 
revision to S. 2470 and we stand ready to provide revised 
language. This concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to 
answer any questions you may have.

                        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 bill S. 220, as ordered 
reported.

                                  

```