```

[House Report 106-842]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-842
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

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

 
   TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY ESTUARY AND BEACH SEWAGE CLEANUP ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 September 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3378]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 3378) to authorize certain actions 
to address the comprehensive treatment of sewage emanating from 
the Tijuana River in order to substantially reduce river and 
ocean pollution in the San Diego border region, 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. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach 
Sewage Cleanup Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

  The purpose of this Act is to authorize the United States to take 
actions to address comprehensively the treatment of sewage emanating 
from the Tijuana River area, Mexico, that flows untreated or partially 
treated into the United States causing significant adverse public 
health andenvironmental impacts.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
          (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
        States section of the International Boundary and Water 
        Commission, United States and Mexico.
          (3) IWTP.--The term ``IWTP'' means the South Bay 
        International Wastewater Treatment Plant constructed under the 
        provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
        U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), section 510 of the Water Quality Act of 
        1987 (101 Stat. 80-82), and Treaty Minutes to the Treaty for 
        the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers 
        and of the Rio Grande, dated February 3, 1944.
          (4) Secondary treatment.--The term ``secondary treatment'' 
        has the meaning such term has under the Federal Water Pollution 
        Control Act and its implementing regulations.
          (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        State.
          (6) Mexican facility.--The term ``Mexican facility'' means a 
        proposed public-private wastewater treatment facility to be 
        constructed and operated under this Act within Mexico for the 
        purpose of treating sewage flows generated within Mexico, which 
        flows impact the surface waters, health, and safety of the 
        United States and Mexico.
          (7) MGD.--The term ``mgd'' means million gallons per day.

 SEC. 4. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR.

  (a) Secondary Treatment.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to the negotiation and conclusion of 
        a new Treaty Minute or the amendment of Treaty Minute 283 under 
        section 5, and notwithstanding section 510(b)(2) of the Water 
        Quality Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 81), the Commission is 
        authorized and directed to provide for the secondary treatment 
        of a total of not more than 50 mgd in Mexico--
                  (A) of effluent from the IWTP if such treatment is 
                not provided for at a facility in the United States; 
                and
                  (B) of additional sewage emanating from the Tijuana 
                River area, Mexico.
          (2) Additional authority.--Subject to the results of the 
        comprehensive plan developed under subsection (b) revealing a 
        need for additional secondary treatment capacity in the San 
        Diego-Tijuana border region and recommending the provision of 
        such capacity in Mexico, the Commission may provide not more 
        than an additional 25 mgd of secondary treatment capacity in 
        Mexico for treatment described in paragraph (1).
  (b) Comprehensive Plan.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a comprehensive 
plan with stakeholder involvement to address the transborder sanitation 
problems in the San Diego-Tijuana border region. The plan shall 
include, at a minimum, an analysis of--
          (1) the long-term secondary treatment needs of the region;
          (2) upgrades in the sewage collection system serving the 
        Tijuana area, Mexico; and
          (3) an identification of options, and recommendations for 
        preferred options, for additional sewage treatment capacity for 
        future flows emanating from the Tijuana River area, Mexico.
  (c) Contract.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
        appropriations to carry out this subsection, the Commission may 
        enter into a fee-for-services contract with the owner of a 
        Mexican facility in order to carry out the secondary treatment 
        requirements of subsection (a) and make payments under such 
        contract.
          (2) Terms.--Any contract under this subsection shall provide, 
        at a minimum, for the following:
                  (A) Transportation of the advanced primary effluent 
                from the IWTP to the Mexican facility for secondary 
                treatment.
                  (B) Treatment of the advanced primary effluent from 
                the IWTP to the secondary treatment level in a manner 
                that is in compliance with water quality laws of the 
                United States, California, and Mexico.
                  (C) Return conveyance from the Mexican facility of 
                any such treated effluent that cannot be reused in 
                either Mexico or the United States to the South Bay 
                Ocean Outfall for discharge into the Pacific Ocean in 
                compliance with water quality laws of the United States 
                and California.
                  (D) Subject to the requirements of subsection (a), 
                additional sewage treatment capacity that provides for 
                advanced primary and secondary treatment of sewage 
                described in paragraph (1)(B) in addition to the 
                capacity required to treat the advanced primary 
                effluent from the IWTP.
                  (E) A contract term of 30 years.
                  (F) Arrangements for monitoring, verification, and 
                enforcement of compliance with United States, 
                California, and Mexican water quality standards.
                  (G) Arrangements for the disposal and use of sludge, 
                produced from the IWTP and the Mexican facility, at a 
                location or locations in Mexico.
                  (H) Payment of fees by the Commission to the owner of 
                the Mexican facility for sewage treatment services with 
                the annual amount payable to reflect all costs 
                associated with the development, financing, 
                construction, operation, and maintenance of the Mexican 
                facility.
                  (I) Provision for the transfer of ownership of the 
                Mexican facility to the United States, and provision 
                for a cancellation fee by the United States to the 
                owner of the Mexican facility, if the Commission fails 
                to perform its obligations under the contract. The 
                cancellation fee shall be in amounts declining over the 
                term of the contract anticipated to be sufficient to 
                repay construction debt and other amounts due to the 
                owner that remain unamortized due to early termination 
                of the contract.
                  (J) Provision for the transfer of ownership of the 
                Mexican facility to the United States, without a 
                cancellation fee, if the owner of the Mexican facility 
                fails to perform the obligations of the owner under the 
                contract.
          (3) Limitation.--The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
        601-613) shall not apply to a contract executed under this 
        section.

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION OF NEW TREATY MINUTE.

  (a) Congressional Statement.--In light of the existing threat to the 
environment and to public health and safety within the United States as 
a result of the river and ocean pollution in the San Diego-Tijuana 
border region, the Secretary is requested to give the highest priority 
to the negotiation and execution of a new Treaty Minute, or a 
modification of Treaty Minute 283, consistent with the provisions of 
this Act, in order that the other provisions of this Act to address 
such pollution may be implemented as soon as possible.
  (b) Negotiation.--
          (1) Initiation.--The Secretary is requested to initiate 
        negotiations with Mexico, within 60 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, for a new Treaty Minute or a 
        modification of Treaty Minute 283 consistent with the 
        provisions of this Act.
          (2) Implementation.--Implementation of a new Treaty Minute or 
        a modification of Treaty Minute 283 under this Act shall be 
        subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy 
        Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
          (3) Matters to be addressed.--A new Treaty Minute or a 
        modification of Treaty Minute 283 under paragraph (1) should 
        address, at a minimum, the following:
                  (A) The siting of treatment facilities in Mexico and 
                in the United States.
                  (B) Provision for the secondary treatment of effluent 
                from the IWTP at a Mexican facility if such treatment 
                is not provided for at a facility in the United States.
                  (C) Provision for additional capacity for advanced 
                primary and secondary treatment of additional sewage 
                emanating from the Tijuana River area, Mexico, in 
                addition to the treatment capacity for the advanced 
                primary effluent from the IWTP at the Mexican facility.
                  (D) Provision for any and all approvals from Mexican 
                authorities necessary to facilitate water quality 
                verification and enforcement at the Mexican facility.
                  (E) Any terms and conditions considered necessary to 
                allow for use in the United States of treated effluent 
                from the Mexican facility, if there is reclaimed water 
                which is surplus to the needs of users in Mexico and 
                such use is consistent with applicable United States 
                and California law.
                  (F) Any other terms and conditions considered 
                necessary by the Secretary in order to implement the 
                provisions of this Act.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
to carry out this Act.

                          purpose and summary

    The purpose of H.R. 3378 is to authorize the U.S. to take 
actions to comprehensively address the treatment of sewage 
generated in the area of Tijuana, Mexico that flows untreated 
or partially treated into the U.S., causing significant 
negative public health and environmental impacts.

                  background and need for legislation

Sanitation problems in San Diego-Tijuana and efforts to resolve them

    The San Diego-Tijuana border region's wastewater 
infrastructure has not kept pace with the area's rapid growth. 
Tijuana, Mexico is situated on elevated terrain compared to San 
Diego, California, and the Tijuana River drains north into the 
San Diego area. Since the infrastructure does not exist to 
treat all the sewage generated in the Tijuana area, untreated 
or partially treated sewage emanates from Tijuana and flows 
into the U.S. leading to serious public health, safety, and 
environmental concerns.
    In the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress authorized the 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility in San Diego to 
provide primary or more advanced treatment of municipal sewage 
and industrial waste from Mexico, including the city of 
Tijuana. For the United States, the secondary treatment 
requirements of the Clean Water Act are defined in federal 
regulations as a numeric effluent quality attainable through 
treatment that requires greater removal of certain pollutants 
than primary or advanced primary treatment.
    In 1990, the bi-national International Boundary and Water 
Commission (Commission) entered into an international treaty 
agreement, called Minute 283, that directed the U.S. and 
Mexican governments to cooperate on the construction and 
operation of a secondary treatment facility in the United 
States with an approximate capacity of 25 million gallons per 
day (mgd).
    In carrying out the directive of Minute 283, and in order 
to achieve some treatment of Mexican wastes as quickly as 
possible, EPA and the U.S. Section of the Commission agreed to 
construct the San Diego treatment facility in stages--by first 
building advanced primary treatment facilities followed later 
by secondary treatment facilities. The South Bay International 
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) became operational in 1998, 
and currently treats only to advanced primary standards. 
Effluent from the IWTP is discharged three and a half miles off 
the coast of San Diego through the South Bay Ocean Outfall. 
However, the Commission remains under a deadline imposed by the 
California Regional Water Control Board to select a secondary 
treatment option and complete its construction by December 
2000.

Options to meet secondary treatment needs

    In order to meet its obligations under the Clean Water Act 
and Minute 283, EPA has examined several secondary treatment 
options. In December 1999, EPA and the U.S. Section of the 
Commission signed a Record of Decision recommending the 
construction of secondary treatment ponds (Complete Mixed 
Aerated, or CMA Ponds) at a site adjacent to the current IWTP 
facility (the Hofer site) as the preferred treatment 
alternative to achieve secondary treatment.
    However, additional funding authorization would be 
necessary to proceed with the CMA Ponds option because, in the 
FY 1993 VA/HUD Appropriations Bill, Congress set a statutory 
cap that EPA could spend no more than $239.4 million on both 
primary and secondary treatment at the IWTP. According to EPA, 
it has less than $10 million remaining under this cap, yet 
construction of the CMA Ponds option would cost approximately 
$45 million.
    Private investors also submitted a proposal, called the 
``Bajagua proposal,'' to construct, operate, maintain and own a 
secondary treatment facility in Mexico. Under this proposal, a 
facility with a capacity of not more than 50 mgd (with 
potential future expansion) would be constructed in Mexico 
through private investments. The primary advanced effluent from 
the IWTP would be pumped to the facility in Mexico, and treated 
to secondary treatment standards. The owner of the facility 
could then sell the reclaimed water for use in Mexico and the 
U.S. Any reclaimed water not sold for reuse would be pumped 
back for discharge through the South Bay Ocean Outfall off the 
coast of San Diego. Under this scenario, the United States, 
acting through the U.S. section of the Commission, would enter 
into a fee-for-services contract with the owner of the proposed 
facility in Mexico for the secondary treatment of effluent from 
the IWTP and additional sewage emanating from Mexico.
    There is no final decision on how best to provide for the 
secondary treatment needs of the San Diego and Mexico border 
area. In addition to the statutory cap on expenditures, several 
significant new circumstances exist that warrant a 
reconsideration of the best means for meeting the region's 
future wastewater treatment needs. These include whether the 
total capacity for wastewater treatment should be expanded 
beyond 25 mgd due to rapidly growing treatment needs, and 
whether a treatment facility should be located in Mexico, both 
of which would require modifying existing statutory 
requirements and Minute 283.
    Proponents of the Bajagua proposal have said they 
anticipate that project benefits may include: the reclaimed 
water could provide additional water supply for use in the 
growing economy of the San Diego-Tijuana border region, thereby 
freeing up existing potable water supplies; the proposed 
facility could treat 50 mgd, with the flexibility to expand 
total capacity later if needed to help meet the area's rapidly 
growing treatment needs; and, the Bajagua proposal reportedly 
could be implemented in a cost-effective, timely manner.
    On July 21, 1999, the House passed a Sense of Congress 
encouraging the Secretary of State to give the highest priority 
to the renegotiation of Minute 283, to allow for the 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility with greater 
than 25 mgd capacity that may be located in Mexico.

      discussion of committee bill and section-by-section analysis

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides that H.R. 3378 may be cited as the 
``Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act of 
2000.''

Section 2. Purpose

    This section provides that the purpose of H.R. 3378 is to 
authorize the U.S. to take actions to comprehensively address 
the treatment of sewage generated in the area of Tijuana, 
Mexico that flows untreated or partially treated into the U.S., 
causing significant negative public health and environmental 
impacts.

Section 3. Definitions

    This section defines the following terms: 
``Administrator'', ``Commission'', ``IWTP'', ``Secondary 
Treatment'', ``Secretary'', ``Mexican Facility'', and ``MGD''.

Section 4. Actions to be taken by the Commission and the Administrator

    Subject to the negotiation and conclusion of a new treaty 
minute or amendment to Minute 283, this section authorizes and 
directs the Commission to provide secondary treatment for a 
total of not more than 50 mgd in Mexico of both primary 
advanced effluent pumped from the IWTP and any additional 
sewage emanating from the Tijuana River area in Mexico. It also 
directs the EPA to develop a comprehensive plan with 
stakeholder involvement within two years of the date of 
enactment of H.R. 3378. The comprehensive plan will analyze the 
long-term secondary treatment needs for the San Diego-Tijuana 
border region, and make recommendations for preferred options 
to provide additional treatment capacity for future flows 
emanating from the Tijuana River area.
    If the comprehensive plan includes a recommendation for 
additional treatment capacity to be provided in Mexico rather 
than in the U.S., the Commission is authorized to provide not 
more than an additional 25 mgd of such capacity in Mexico.
    Subject to the availability of appropriations, this section 
also authorizes the Commission to enter into a fee-for-services 
contract and make payments on behalf of the United States for 
treatment services rendered under the contract with the owner 
of a Mexican facility. The contract must include, at a minimum, 
the following terms:
    (1) That the advanced primary effluent from the IWTP be 
transported to the Mexican facility, and that it is treated to 
the secondary treatment level in compliance with U.S., 
California, and Mexican water quality laws.
    (2) For any effluent treated at the Mexican facility that 
is not reused in Mexico or the U.S., that it is returned for 
discharge through the South Bay Ocean Outfall off the coast of 
San Diego, and is in compliance with U.S. and California water 
quality laws.
    (3) That the Mexican facility may provide sewage treatment 
capacity in addition to the capacity needed to treat the 
advanced primary effluent pumped from the IWTP, if recommended 
as a preferred option in the EPA comprehensive plan analyzing 
the long-term treatment needs and recommending preferred 
options to provide such treatment.
    (4) That the contract has a term of 30 years.
    (5) That arrangements are made for the monitoring, 
verification, and enforcement of compliance with U.S., 
California and Mexican water quality standards.
    (6) That arrangements are made for the disposal and use of 
sludge in Mexico, which is from the IWTP and the Mexican 
facility.
    (7) That the Commission pay an annual fee to the owner of 
the Mexican facility covering the costs of development, 
financing, construction, and operation and maintenance of the 
facility.
    (8) That, if the Commission fails to perform its 
contractual obligations, the ownership of the facility is 
transferred to the U.S. after the U.S. pays a cancellation fee 
to the owner of the facility, which reflects the costs of 
repayment of construction debt and other contractual losses 
resulting from early termination of the contract. The 
cancellation fee owed to the owner of the facility shall be in 
amounts declining over the term of the contract.
    (9) That, if the owner of the Mexican facility fails to 
perform its contractual obligations, ownership of the facility 
will be transferred to the U.S. without a cancellation fee.
    Finally, this section states that the Contract Disputes Act 
of 1978 does not apply to a contract executed under this 
section. The Committee has been informed that this provision is 
necessary in order to promote private financing of the Mexican 
facility.

Section 5. Negotiation of a new treaty minute

    This section includes a Congressional Statement requesting 
that the Secretary of State give the highest priority to 
entering into an international treaty agreement with Mexico (by 
revising the existing Minute 283, or negotiating a new minute) 
to carry out this Act in light of the threats to health and the 
environment from sanitation problems in the San Diego-Tijuana 
border region.
    The Secretary is requested to begin negotiations with 
Mexico within 60 days after H.R. 3378's enactment. The 
implementation of a new or revised minute shall also require 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 
Finally, any new or revised minute, should address, at a 
minimum, the following:
    (1) The siting of treatment facilities in the U.S. and 
Mexico.
    (2) Providing secondary treatment of the IWTP primary 
advanced effluent in Mexico, if such treatment is not provided 
for in the U.S.
    (3) Providing treatment capacity for the advanced primary 
and secondary treatment of sewage in addition to the IWTP 
effluent.
    (4) Providing any and all approvals needed from Mexican 
officials to facilitate water quality verification and 
enforcement at the Mexican facility.
    (5) Any terms and conditions needed for the U.S. to use 
reclaimed water in the U.S. that are consistent with U.S. and 
California laws, if there is any reclaimed water not used in 
Mexico.
    (6) Any other terms and conditions considered necessary to 
carry out H.R. 3378.

Section 6. Authorization of appropriations

    This section authorizes such sums as necessary to carry out 
the Act.

                                Hearings

    No hearings have been held on this specific legislation, 
although the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 
held hearings on the Administration's FY 2001 budget request, 
which included funds for U.S.-Mexico border pollution problems, 
and on meeting wastewater infrastructure needs, generally.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 26, 2000, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open session, discharged H.R. 3378 from 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and 
ordered the bill reported, as amended, to the House by voice 
vote.
    The Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which, in addition to making technical and 
clarifying changes:
    (1) Adds a definition of ``secondary treatment.''
    (2) Authorizes the Commission to provide 50 mgd of 
secondary treatment capacity, with authorization for up to an 
additional 25 mgd based on the results of a comprehensive long-
term plan to be developed by EPA and stakeholders.
    (3) Directs the EPA and stakeholders to develop a 
comprehensive, long-term plan analyzing the wastewater 
treatment needs in the San Diego-Tijuana border region, and 
making recommendations for preferred options to treat 
additional sewage flows.
    (4) Adds a new provision to be included in the terms of a 
fee-for-services contract regarding the transfer of ownership 
of the treatment facility in Mexico to the U.S., if the owner 
of the facility fails to meet its contractual obligations.
    In addition, a unanimous consent request was granted to 
delete a provision from the substitute amendment waiving 
federal fiscal procurement laws for a contract entered into 
under this Act.

                             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. 
3378 reported.

                      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

    In accordance with Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee is required to 
estimate the costs incurred in carrying out the bill in the 
fiscal year in which it is reported and in each of the five 
fiscal years following that fiscal year. This rule does not 
apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) under section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 
submitted prior to the filing of the report. As no CBO cost 
estimate and comparison is available at the time of the filing 
of this report, the Committee has included its own estimate for 
H.R. 3378. Upon receipt of a CBO cost estimate and comparison, 
the Committee will evaluate whether or not it should adopt the 
CBO estimate in place of the Committee's estimate.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    H.R. 3378 would authorize the United States, acting through 
the U.S. Section of the Commission, to enter into a 30-year 
fee-for-services contract with the owner of a privately 
financed secondary wastewater treatment facility located in 
Mexico. The purpose of entering into such contract would be for 
the U.S. to provide adequate wastewater treatment along the 
U.S.-Mexico border so that untreated or partially treated 
sewage from Tijuana, Mexico no longer flows north into the San 
Diego, California area. H.R. 3378 authorizes the U.S. to pay 
annual contract fees incorporating the costs of developing, 
financing, constructing, operating and maintaining the 
wastewater treatment facility in Mexico.
    The Committee estimates the cost to the U.S. government 
would be a total of $203 million in budget authority, and the 
same amount in outlays for fiscal years 2001-2005. This 
estimate has been developed in accordance with the budget 
scorekeeping guidelines used by the House and Senate Budget 
Committees, CBO and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
in compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
amended, and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, as amended.
    In accordance with these guidelines, the fee-for-services 
contract may be characterized as a lease-purchase contract. 
Scorekeeping guideline #11 requires that, for lease-purchases, 
budget authority is scored against the legislation in the year 
in which the budget authority is first made available in the 
amount of the estimated net present value of the Government's 
total estimated legal obligations, or minimum lease payments, 
over the life of the contract. This calculation excludes 
imputed interest costs and identifiable annual operating 
expenses that would be paid by the Government as owner. The 
annual minimum lease payments are estimated at $13.7 million. 
In calculating the annual minimum lease payments, the Committee 
assumes that the project's estimated capital costs are $103 
million.
    In scoring lease purchases, the discount rates used to 
calculate the net present value of the minimum lease payments 
should be Treasury rates for marketable debt instruments of 
similar maturity for the lease term. The discount rate used to 
calculate the net present value is 6.0%, recommended by CBO as 
the nominal interest rate on 30-year Treasury notes and bonds.
    Outlays for a lease-purchase in which the Government 
assumes substantial risk are spread across the period during 
which the contractor constructs the asset, which, in this case, 
is estimated to be approximately three years. The assumed 
outlay rates over the three-year period are 25%, 45% and 30% 
for each year, respectively.
    The identifiable operations and maintenance costs are not 
scored as upfront costs, but are scored over the lease term for 
both budget authority and outlays. Estimated annual operations 
and maintenance costs are $6.7 million for this project, and 
estimated outlays assume a 100% annual outlay rate.
    The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts, 
therefore pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

                             SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 01      FY 02      FY 03      FY 04      FY 05      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA............................................      189.1  .........  .........        6.7        6.7      202.5
Ols...........................................       47.3       85.1       56.7        6.7        6.7      202.5
OL rates......................................        25%        45%        30%       100%       100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes the assumptions in this cost 
estimate are reasonable given the currently available 
information about the proposed wastewater treatment project. No 
Federal agency has submitted a similar analysis estimating the 
costs of this project, however, the Committee understands the 
Commission has concurred with the project's estimated capital 
and annual operations and maintenance costs provided by the 
project sponsors, and used in the Committee's cost estimate.

                    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 
notes in its cost estimate the changes in spending subject to 
appropriation that would occur as a result of passing H.R. 
3378.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on the 
subject of H.R. 3378.
    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 not yet received a cost estimate for H.R. 3378 
from the Director of the CBO.

                   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 plans to adopt as its own the estimate of 
federal mandates prepared by the Director of the CBO pursuant 
to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 
Public Law 104-4), when such estimate is made available to the 
Committee. The Committee has concluded that H.R. 3378 contains 
no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA, and would impose no costs on state, local or tribal 
governments.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were 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).

                                  

```