79–010

Calendar No. 710

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–359

BEND FEED CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT ACT OF 2000

JULY 24, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2425 ]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was

referred the bill (S. 2425) to authorize the Bureau of Land Management to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the

Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, and for other purposes,

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an

amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 2, strike paragraph (g), line 21 through 24.

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 2425 is to authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the

Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, for other purposes.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) was founded in 1914. It

serves an area of about 28 square miles with 8,100 irrigated acres,

between Bend and Sisters, Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade

Mountains. TID was originally designed to deliver water to large

commercial farms. Because of growth and urbanization in Central

Oregon, water is being delivered to an increasing number of small

farms and ranchettes over a large geographic area.

The area’s geology of fractured basalt and lava tubes in combination with long canal lengths cause high water loss. TID has been

aggressively converting open distribution canals to underground

pressurized pipelines to eliminate seepage, reduce delivery time,

provide enough water to meet irrigation requirements, and guarantee minimum water levels in Tumalo Creek. Other benefits of

2

piping are increased public safety by enclosing canals, and system

durability in the harsh Central Oregon climate.

Conservation project expenditures from 1995–2000 totaled

$2,620,500. Comparatively, TID’s annual operating budget is just

over $500,000. The TID has funded previous projects largely

through excess property sales. Projected conservation project cost

for the Bend Feed Canal Project Group is $4,000,000. TID contemplates replacing 6 sections of open canal with pipeline, including replacing an elevated flume with buried steel pipeline. The

work would be done between 2000 and 2003 and anticipated benefits include water conservation, increased system reliability, a substantial increase in safety, and operation and maintenance savings.

S. 2425 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the planning, design and construction of the Project. Federal costs shall not exceed 50% of the total and shall be non-reimbursable. The bill authorizes $2.5 million for the Federal share of

the activities authorized.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2425 was introduced by Senator Smith of Oregon on April 13,

2000. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on

the bill on May 24, 2000. After the business meeting on June 7,

2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S.

2425, as amended, favorably reported.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on June 7, 2000, by a unanimous vote with a quorum

present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 2425, if amended as

described herein.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During the consideration of S. 2425, the Committee adopted an

amendment to strike section 2(g) which limited administrative expenses to one percent. Because of the nature of this project, the

Committee expects that the administrative expenses will be minimal. In this case, the irrigation district has done the bulk of the

work and the Bureau of Reclamation does not anticipate participating in planning, design or construction of the Project. Instead,

the agency will only be acting as a pass-through for the federally

funded portion of the project.

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1 is a short title.

Section 2 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate

in planning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project. The Federal share of the costs shall not exceed 50 percent and shall be nonreimbursable. Funds received shall not be

considered a supplemental or additional benefit; title of facilities

constructed shall be held by the District, and O&M shall be the responsibility of the District. This section also authorizes $2.5 million

for the Federal share of authorized activities.

3

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided

by the Congressional Budget Office.

S. 2425—Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project Act of 2000

S. 2425 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation

with the Tumalo Irrigation District, to participate in the planning

design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project

in Oregon. The bill would limit the federal share of total project

costs to 50 percent. Assuming appropriation of the authorized

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2425 would cost

$2.5 million over the 2001–2003 period. The bill would not affect

direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures

would not apply.

S. 2425 contains no private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Enactment of this bill would benefit the Tumalo Irrigation District. The

district probably would incur costs to match the authorized federal

funds and to operate and maintain the project, but these costs

would be voluntary. The bill would impose no costs on other state,

local, or tribal government.

The CBO staff contacts are Rachel Applebaum and Ali Aslam (for

federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state and local impact).

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 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

S. 2425. 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 S. 2425, as ordered reported.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On, May 10, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth

Executive agency recommendations on S. 2425. These reports had

not been received at the time the report on S. 2425 was filed. When

the reports become available, the Chairman will request that they

be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate.

The testimony provided by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

STATEMENT OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2425, the

Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project Act. I am Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (RecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:33 Jul 25, 2000 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR359.XXX pfrm03 PsN: SR359
4

lamation). The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the

Interior (Secretary), in cooperation with the Tumalo Irrigation District (District) to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline

Project in Oregon. By returning water to a stream that is

seasonally dewatered, the project will enhance instream

flows for resident fish, improve water quality, and conserve water. Reclamation assisted the Tumalo Irrigation

District’s efforts to plan and design this project under several programs, including the Efficiency Incentives Program

that helps local entities achieve their water conservation

objectives. However, the Administration believes there is

sufficient authority under the Deschutes Basin Ecosystem

Restoration Act (Public Law 104–333 and Public Law 104–

208) to complete this project. Therefore, the Administration does not support this legislation to authorize Reclamation to participate in construction of the Bend Feeder

Canal Pipeline.

The Tumalo Irrigation District is located near Bend, Oregon, in the Deschutes River basin. The District has two

diversions points on Tumalo Creek: the Tumalo Feed

Canal and the Bend Feed Canal. The last 2.5 miles of

Tumalo Creek lack sufficient flow in later summer to allow

fish passage between the Deschutes River and Tumalo

Creek above the Tumalo Feed Canal Diversion. The District want to pipe the Bend Feed Canal to the point where

it meets the Tumalo Feed Canal. The piping will line the

canal and reduce the amount of water seepage in the

canal. The saved water will be used to improve reliability

of water supply to the District and streamflows to benefit

resident fish and wildlife in Tumalo Creek.

The legislation would authorize $2.5 million for the Federal share (50 percent) of the costs of planning, design, and

construction of the Bend Feeder Canal Pipeline Project. S.

2425 would authorize the Secretary to credit the District’s

near-term outlays for design, planning and construction

work completed prior to the enactment of this legislation

toward the District’s cost-share requirements under this

bill.

In March of this year, Reclamation, the District, and the

Oregon Water Resources Department (Oregon) entered

into a water rights transfer agreement that specifies how

the saved water will be allocated under Oregon water law.

Oregon is now processing a water right action through its

administrative processes to implement the agreement. Reclamation assisted the State of Oregon in its construction of

a water measuring station just downstream of the Tumalo

Creek diversion so that the State can monitor and enforce

the agreement in accordance with state water law.

In addition, the Administration is concerned about explicit, legislative exemptions from the Reclamation Reform

Act as it contained in Section 2(b). I would like to point out

that subsection 2(g), which limits Reclamation’s administrative expenses to no more than one percent of project

cost, is inappropriate and unworkable.

5

This concludes my statement. I will be glad 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 S. 2425, as ordered reported.

Æ