39–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–167 

EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE 

WATER SOURCE PROJECTS 

JULY 13, 2005.—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 Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1359] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 1359) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot program for alternative water 

source projects, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS. 

Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is 

amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 

2004’’ and inserting ‘‘$125,000,000’’. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 1359 amends section 220 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (the Clean Water Act) to reauthorize appropriations for 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide grants for 

alternative water source projects to meet critical water supply 

needs. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In recent years, there has been increasing interest by communities across the Nation and by Congress in ensuring the availability of water sources to meet future water supply needs. Growth 

in population and increasing environmental awareness are causing 

2 

many communities to explore alternative water supplies through 

reclamation, reuse, and conservation. While Clean Water Act construction grants (before Fiscal Year 1991) and State Revolving 

Loan Funds (since Fiscal Year 1989) have been available for such 

activities, most expenditures to date have been for more traditional 

wastewater projects, and not for enhancing water supplies through 

wastewater reuse and water recycling. 

To provide Federal assistance, in 2000, in Title VI of P.L. 106– 

457, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add section 220. 

Section 220 authorized appropriations of $75 million for fiscal years 

2002 through 2004 for EPA to make grants for alternative water 

source projects to entities with authority under State law to develop or provide water for municipal and industrial or agricultural 

uses in areas that are experiencing critical water supply needs, 

with a non-Federal cost share of 50 percent. This authorization has 

expired. Reauthorization of section 220 of the Clean Water Act provides an authority to help meet some critical water supply needs 

around the Nation. 

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 1359, as reported, would amend section 220 of the Clean Water Act to authorize a total of $125 million for EPA grants for 

alternative water source projects. There is no fiscal year limitation 

on the authorization of appropriations. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment held a hearing on Member project requests for the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Among the Member 

project requests discussed at the hearing and received by the Subcommittee were requests for water reuse projects to augment water 

supplies, although single purpose municipal and industrial water 

supply projects are not a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers 

and are cost-shared as 100 percent reimbursable. In addition, in 

the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held hearings on issues relating to water scarcity and 

demand on May 22 and June 4, 2003. 

Representative Jim Davis introduced H.R. 1359 on March 17, 

2005. H.R. 1359 was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session on May 18, 2005 to consider H.R. 

1359 and other legislation. The Committee adopted by voice vote 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment removed the fiscal year limitation on the authorization of appropriations, leaving the total amount authorized at $125 million. The 

Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported to the House by 

voice vote. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any 

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. There were no recorded 

3 

votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 1359 reported. A motion to order H.R. 1359 reported to the House was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included below. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objective of this legislation are to meet critical water supply 

needs around the Nation by developing or providing additional 

water for municipal, industrial, or agricultural uses through alternative water source projects. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

following cost estimate for H.R. 1359 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 27, 2005. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1359, a bill to amend the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot program for 

alternative water source projects. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. Mehlman 

(for federal costs); and Lisa Ramirez-Branum (for the state and 

local impact). 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH M. ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure. 

4 

H.R. 1359—A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

to extend the pilot program for alternative water source projects 

Summary: CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $63 million over the next five years, assuming appropriation of the authorized amount. H.R. 1359 would extend the authorization for an Environmental Protection Agency program to 

provide grants to states, interstate and intrastate water resource 

development agencies, local government agencies, private utilities, 

and nonprofit entities to develop projects that would enhance water 

supplies by reusing or treating wastewater. This legislation would 

authorize the appropriation of $125 million for the pilot program 

without any fiscal-year limitation. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1359 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this estimate, 

CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the end of fiscal 

year 2005 and that the amount authorized will be appropriated 

evenly over the five years covered by this cost estimate, 2006 

through 2010. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending 

patterns of similar grant programs. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1359 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— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................ 25 25 25 25 25 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................... 1 5 13 20 24 

Note: The pilot program has not been previously funded. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1359 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Enacting this bill would benefit states receiving grant funding. Those grants require a nonfederal cost-share of at least 50 percent. Because that requirement would be a condition for receiving 

federal assistance, it would not be a mandate under UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum, 

impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico. 

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

5 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 1359 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as 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): 

SECTION 220 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION 

CONTROL ACT 

SEC. 220. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE 

PROJECTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section a total of ø$75,000,000 for 

fiscal years 2002 through 2004¿ $125,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

Æ