89–010 

Calendar No. 303 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–153 

TULE RIVER TRIBE WATER DEVELOPMENT ACT 

MARCH 2, 2010.—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 H.R. 1945] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the Act (H.R. 1945) to require the Secretary of the Interior 

to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of constructing 

a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a delivery system for the 

Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation in the State 

of California to provide a water supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommends that the Act do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of H.R. 1945 is to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a delivery system 

for the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation in 

the State of California to provide a water supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The Tule River Reservation is located in central California and 

includes approximately 58,000 acres. The Tribal members currently 

rely on springs and groundwater wells for water. 

In 1999, the Tule River Indian Tribe, the Tule River Association, 

and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company began negotiations to resolve the Tribe’s reserved water rights claims. These negotiations started even though no litigation to determine the 

Tribe’s water rights had been initiated. In 2007, all of the parties 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
2 

who had participated in the negotiations except the United States 

entered into the Tule River Tribe Reserved Water Rights Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement quantifies the Tribe’s 

reserved water rights and provides for the development of a water 

supply system that would include a storage reservoir of not more 

than 5,000 acre-feet of water, the associated outlet works and a 

water delivery system. The system will serve tribal and non-Indian 

water users. The parties to the settlement agreement indicate that 

there is no local opposition to the settlement. 

H.R. 1945 authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to assess the 

feasibility of constructing the water system described in the settlement agreement. A similar attempt to obtain legislation to authorize a feasibility study was initiated in the 110th Congress and the 

parties have been waiting over two years since they signed the settlement agreement for an assessment from the United States regarding the feasibility of the project. The settlement parties commissioned technical studies of the proposed water storage project 

and although those studies have been reviewed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation, additional analysis and investigation would be required before a feasibility determination could be made. H.R. 1945 

does not authorize any construction and does not settle the Tribe’s 

water rights. The settlement parties anticipate separate legislation 

authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to execute the settlement 

agreement and construct the project. H.R. 1945 prohibits future 

projects constructed pursuant to the feasibility study from supplying water for any current or future casino, lodging, dining, entertainment, or other spaces that support a gaming activity. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 1945, sponsored by Representative Nunes, passed the House 

of Representatives by a vote of 417–3 on July 8, 2009. Companion 

legislation, S. 789, was introduced by Senator Feinstein on April 2, 

2009. The subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 

789 on July 23, 2009 (S. Hrg. 111–91). At its business meeting on 

December 16, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1945 favorably reported. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on December 16, 2009, by voice vote of a quorum 

present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 1945. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 identifies the short title of the act as the ‘‘Tule River 

Tribe Water Development Act’’. 

Section 2(a) defines ‘‘Secretary’’ as the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation and ‘‘Tribe’’ as 

the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation in California. 

Section 2(b) requires the Bureau of Reclamation, within two 

years of receipt of funding, to complete a feasibility study to evaluate alternatives, including those to store 5,000 acre-feet of water, 

for the provision of domestic, commercial, municipal, industrial and 

irrigation water supply for the Tribe and to report to the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:33 Mar 04, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR153.XXX SR153

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
3 

mittee on Natural Resources of the House and the Committees on 

Energy and Natural Resources and Indian Affairs of the Senate on 

the results of the study. Three million dollars is authorized for the 

study. 

Section 2(c)(1) prohibits future projects constructed pursuant to 

the feasibility study from supplying water for any current or future 

casino, lodging, dining, entertainment, or other spaces that support 

a gaming activity. 

Section 2(c)(2) requires that a water supply provided by a project 

constructed relating to the feasibility study must be available to 

serve the domestic, municipal, and governmental needs of the Tribe 

and its members and other commercial, agricultural, and industrial 

needs not related to a gaming activity. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1945—Tule River Tribe Water Development Act 

H.R. 1945 would require the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct 

a feasibility study to evaluate alternatives for providing a dedicated 

water supply for the Tule River Tribe of California. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1945 would cost $3 million over the next two years. 

Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1945 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. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Aurora Swanson. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, 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. 1945. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or significant economic 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. 1945, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

H.R. 1945, as ordered reported, does not contain any congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 

benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
4 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

Because H.R. 1945 is identical to companion measure, S. 789, the 

Committee did not request Executive Agency Views. The testimony 

provided by the Department of the Interior at the subcommittee 

hearing on S. 789 on July 23, 2009 follows: 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Michael Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 789, 

the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. For reasons 

discussed below, the Department does not support S. 789. 

The proposed legislation would direct Interior ‘‘to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a delivery 

system for the Tule River Indian Tribe of California to provide a water supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, 

and agricultural purposes, and for other purposes.’’ The 

Act would authorize $3 million for Reclamation to conduct 

a feasibility study to be completed within 2 years after 

funds are appropriated. 

Reclamation delivered testimony on similar legislation 

(H.R. 2535) during the 110th Congress on September 25, 

2007. While S. 789 contains some notable changes in Section 2, the Department’s concerns with this bill remain. 

Reclamation has not reviewed and is not in a position to 

verify the accuracy of the cost estimates upon which appropriations are authorized in S. 789. Before being asked to 

consider a request for authorization or funding of a feasibility study, Reclamation typically has had an opportunity 

to conduct appraisal-level analysis of a project. Without a 

completed appraisal level study, the Department believes 

it is premature to authorize this feasibility study. The authorization of $3 million for this study would further compete with the funding needs of other already authorized 

projects. Reclamation generally requires completion of an 

appraisal level study before considering whether the 

project warrants continuing to a feasibility-level analysis. 

Reclamation understands that the Tribe has conducted a 

substantial amount of technical, planning, and environmental work over the past decade; however, Reclamation 

has not reviewed these documents nor determined how 

they may affect the scope, cost, or schedule of a feasibility 

study. 

In addition, the proposed legislation does not specify a 

local non-Federal cost-share partner or a cost share requirement for the feasibility study. Reclamation typically 

shares feasibility study costs with the non-Federal partners paying 50 percent of study costs. There is ample legislative precedent which supports this approach. For several 

years settlement agreement negotiations have been conducted between the Tribe, downstream water users, and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
5 

the Federal negotiation team regarding the Tribe’s federally reserved water rights. However, not all of the issues 

between the Tribe and the Federal negotiating team have 

been resolved. Moreover, the Department has not analyzed 

the settlement needs of the Tribe and other parties including the question of whether the proposed storage reservoir, 

outlet works, and delivery system are a cost effective approach to accomplishing the goals of the settling parties. 

Nor have issues of cost and cost sharing with other settlement parties been negotiated. Until the Department has 

completed its analysis of the proposed settlement, it is premature to take a position on the scope, schedule, and cost 

of the feasibility study that is proposed in this legislation. 

Typically, a feasibility study of this size and shape, including National Environmental Policy Act compliance, requires several years to complete with significant costs. Actual costs for this study would be determined after study 

authorization and appropriations are provided followed by 

a Plan of Study and public scoping processes. The time 

and cost to complete the feasibility study and environmental documentation for the Tule River Tribe Water Development Project could be shortened if the Tribe’s technical and environmental analyses and documentation are 

sufficient and compatible with Federal requirements. The 

costs of a feasibility study are significant and may exceed 

the $3 million authorization in this bill. 

This bill also includes a new subsection 2(c) that would 

restrict the use of water from any project ‘‘relating to the 

feasibility study’’ authorized in this legislation, prohibiting 

the use of water supplies provided by this project for the 

casino of the Tule River Tribe or any other tribal casino 

or facility designed to support gaming activity. The Department opposes conditioning support for tribal water development upon restrictions on permissible activities. This 

bill, if enacted, will place a restriction upon any project 

that may be authorized as part of a comprehensive water 

rights settlement even if the exact feasibility study authorized by the bill is never carried out. We understand that 

the Tribe supports this legislation, but we believe that it 

raises serious precedent and fairness problems. 

Although we do not support this bill, the Department 

understands the importance of a reliable water supply and 

will continue to work with the Tribe toward this goal in 

addressing the issues described above. 

That concludes my statement. 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 bill H.R. 1945, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING