```

[House Report 109-167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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 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 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.

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.

                       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 
[$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 2004] $125,000,000. 
Such sums shall remain available until expended.

                                  

```