69–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–166 

WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING COORDINATION ACT 

JUNE 12, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1654] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1654) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate Federal and State permitting processes related to the construction of new surface water storage projects on lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead 

agency for permit processing, 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: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) BUREAU.—The term ‘‘Bureau’’ means the Bureau of Reclamation. 

(2) COOPERATING AGENCIES.—The term ‘‘cooperating agency’’ means a Federal 

agency with jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision required for a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency subject to section 3(c). 

(3) QUALIFYING PROJECTS.—The term ‘‘qualifying projects’’ means new surface 

water storage projects in the States covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 

Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act 

(43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on lands administered by the Department 

2 

of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, 

right-of-way, lease, or any private holding, unless the project applicant elects 

not to participate in the process authorized by this Act. 

(4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING AGENCIES. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY.—The Bureau is established as the lead 

agency for purposes of coordinating all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements, permits, licenses, or other approvals or decisions required under Federal law to construct qualifying projects. 

(b) IDENTIFICATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATING AGENCIES.—The Commissioner of the Bureau shall— 

(1) identify, as early as practicable upon receipt of an application for a qualifying project, any Federal agency that may have jurisdiction over a review, 

analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, approval, or decision required for 

a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and regulations; and 

(2) notify any such agency, within a reasonable timeframe, that the agency 

has been designated as a cooperating agency in regards to the qualifying project 

unless that agency responds to the Bureau in writing, within a timeframe set 

forth by the Bureau, notifying the Bureau that the agency— 

(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the qualifying project; 

(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the qualifying project or 

any review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other approval 

or decision associated therewith; or 

(C) does not intend to submit comments on the qualifying project or conduct any review of such a project or make any decision with respect to such 

project in a manner other than in cooperation with the Bureau. 

(c) STATE AUTHORITY.—A State in which a qualifying project is being considered 

may choose, consistent with State law— 

(1) to participate as a cooperating agency; and 

(2) to make subject to the processes of this Act all State agencies that— 

(A) have jurisdiction over the qualifying project; 

(B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion for the 

qualifying project; or 

(C) are required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or 

approval for the qualifying project. 

SEC. 4. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The principal responsibilities of the Bureau under this Act are— (1) to serve as the point of contact for applicants, State agencies, Indian 

tribes, and others regarding proposed qualifying projects; 

(2) to coordinate preparation of unified environmental documentation that 

will serve as the basis for all Federal decisions necessary to authorize the use 

of Federal lands for qualifying projects; and 

(3) to coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for project development 

and construction of qualifying projects. 

(b) COORDINATION PROCESS.—The Bureau shall have the following coordination 

responsibilities: 

(1) PREAPPLICATION COORDINATION.—Notify cooperating agencies of proposed 

qualifying projects not later than 30 days after receipt of a proposal and facilitate a preapplication meeting for prospective applicants, relevant Federal and 

State agencies, and Indian tribes— 

(A) to explain applicable processes, data requirements, and applicant submissions necessary to complete the required Federal agency reviews within 

the timeframe established; and 

(B) to establish the schedule for the qualifying project. 

(2) CONSULTATION WITH COOPERATING AGENCIES.—Consult with the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies. 

(3) SCHEDULE.—Work with the qualifying project applicant and cooperating 

agencies to establish a project schedule. In establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among other factors— 

(A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under applicable laws and 

regulations; 

(B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable; 

(C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying project; 

(D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying project; and 

3 

(E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources that may be affected by the qualifying project. 

(4) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.—Prepare a unified environmental review 

document for each qualifying project application, incorporating a single environmental record on which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies make necessary decisions, within their respective 

authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with the following 

timelines: 

(A) Not later than 1 year after acceptance of a completed project application when an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact is determined to be the appropriate level of review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(B) Not later than 1 year and 30 days after the close of the public comment period for a draft environmental impact statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact statement is required under the same. 

(5) CONSOLIDATED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.—Maintain a consolidated administrative record of the information assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis for agency decisions. 

(6) PROJECT DATA RECORDS.—To the extent practicable and consistent with 

Federal law, ensure that all project data is submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic format, compile, and where authorized under existing law, make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the qualifying project applicant, and to the public. 

(7) PROJECT MANAGER.—Appoint a project manager for each qualifying 

project. The project manager shall have authority to oversee the project and to 

facilitate the issuance of the relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be 

responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau responsibilities set forth in 

this section and all cooperating agency responsibilities under section 5. 

SEC. 5. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES. 

(a) ADHERENCE TO BUREAU SCHEDULE.— 

(1) TIMEFRAMES.—On notification of an application for a qualifying project, 

the head of each cooperating agency shall submit to the Bureau a timeframe 

under which the cooperating agency reasonably will be able to complete the authorizing responsibilities of the cooperating agency. 

(2) SCHEDULE.— 

(A) USE OF TIMEFRAMES.—The Bureau shall use the timeframes submitted under this subsection to establish the project schedule under section 

4. 

(B) ADHERENCE.—Each cooperating agency shall adhere to the project 

schedule established by the Bureau under subparagraph (A). 

(b) ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD.—The head of each cooperating agency shall submit 

to the Bureau all environmental review material produced or compiled in the course 

of carrying out activities required under Federal law, consistent with the project 

schedule established by the Bureau under subsection (a)(2). 

(c) DATA SUBMISSION.—To the extent practicable and consistent with Federal law, 

the head of each cooperating agency shall submit all relevant project data to the 

Bureau in a generally accessible electronic format, subject to the project schedule 

established by the Bureau under subsection (a)(2). 

SEC. 6. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, after public notice in accordance with subchapter 

II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as 

the ‘‘Administrative Procedure Act’’), may accept and expend funds contributed by 

a non-Federal public entity to expedite the evaluation of a permit of that entity related to a qualifying project. 

(b) EFFECT ON PERMITTING.— 

(1) EVALUATION OF PERMITS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 

ensure that the evaluation of permits carried out using funds accepted under 

this section shall— 

(A) be reviewed by the Regional Director of the Bureau of the region in 

which the qualifying project or activity is located (or a designee); and 

(B) use the same procedures for decisions that would otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for similar projects or activities not carried out using funds authorized under this section. 

(2) IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKING.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

and the head of each cooperating agency receiving funds under this section for 

4 

a qualifying project shall ensure that the use of the funds accepted under this 

section for the qualifying project shall not— 

(A) substantively or procedurally impact impartial decisionmaking with 

respect to the issuance of permits; or 

(B) diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory authorities of the cooperating agency. 

(c) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—None of the funds accepted under this section 

shall be used to carry out a review of the evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(1)(A). 

(d) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under this section are made available to 

the public, including on the Internet. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1654 is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate Federal and State permitting processes relating 

to the construction of new surface water storage projects on lands 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau of Reclamation 

as the lead agency for permit processing. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 1654, as amended, creates a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ permitting 

process through the Bureau of Reclamation to streamline the current multi-agency permitting processes for new or expanded nonfederal surface storage facilities. 

The regulatory process of constructing new surface water storage—whether federally or non-federally owned—often involves a 

host of federal, state, and local permits and approvals from various 

agencies. Throughout this process federal agencies are not required 

to coordinate their permits and approvals with one another and 

have little incentive to do so. As a result, conflicting agency permit 

requirements add time to the project planning and implementation 

process and increase the potential for last-minute surprises that 

could endanger the success of a project or require significant additional work. For example, it took 14 years to permit but just two 

years to build the 22,400 acre-foot High Savery Dam Project in Wyoming. At a 2012 Water and Power Subcommittee oversight hearing, Mr. Pat O’Toole, a local rancher testified, ‘‘the lead federal 

agency wasted a great deal of time making decisions on the project 

and at times seemed unable to make decisions. These delays not 

only postponed the project, they resulted in wasted time and 

money.’’ 

Previous Administrations have acknowledged the need for coordinating permitting and review. In October 2009, nine federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ‘‘to expedite the siting and construction of electric transmission infrastructure in the United States . . . and to improve coordination 

among project applicants, federal agencies, and states and tribes 

involved in the siting and permitting process.’’ This MOU included 

provisions for the use of a single unified environmental review document for each project analysis. H.R. 1654 creates a similar ‘‘onestop-shop’’ permitting process to expedite construction of new or expanded non-federal surface storage facilities. Specifically, the bill 

establishes Reclamation as the lead agency for purposes of coordinating all reviews, analysis, opinions, statements, permits, licenses, 

or other federal approvals required under federal law. As the point 

5 

of contact for the federal government, Reclamation shall coordinate 

the preparation of the unified environmental documentation that 

will serve as the basis for all federal decisions necessary to authorize the use of federal lands, as well as coordinate the project development and construction of qualifying projects. The consolidated 

permitting process authorized under this Title is modeled after the 

Obama Administration’s ‘‘Interagency Rapid Response Team for 

Transmission.’’ 

Additionally, the bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to accept and spend funds contributed by a non-federal public entity to 

expedite the evaluation of a permit relating to the qualifying 

project—similar to the one authorized under Section 140 of Public 

Law 108–137—to finance upgrades to the Hetch Hetchy project in 

California. As amended, the bill allows project sponsors to opt out 

and pursue other pathways to development if they so choose. The 

bill is not intended to be a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach, but rather 

an approach to give water project sponsors the flexibility to choose 

which agency and process works best for them. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides short title for the bill: the ‘‘Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act’’. 

Section 2 defines key terms used throughout the Act. As amended, qualifying projects include all new or expanded surface water 

storage projects, unless the project applicant elects not to participate in the process authorized under this Act. 

Section 3 establishes Reclamation as the lead agency and sets 

forth the process by which cooperating agencies are identified and 

established. This process requires Reclamation to notify all agencies with permitting responsibilities related to proposed projects 

that those projects have been received, and gives agencies who are 

improperly identified an opportunity to opt out of the process if 

they will not be performing any review outside of the coordinated 

process. Section 3 also provides states with discretion to participate 

as cooperating agencies and to involve their state agencies in coordination with the other cooperating agencies. 

Section 4 sets forth the responsibilities of Reclamation as the 

lead agency, including serving as the point of contact for applicants, state agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed 

qualifying projects. Reclamation must also coordinate the preparation of the unified environmental review document that serves as 

the basis for all federal decisions necessary to authorize the use of 

federal lands for new surface water storage construction. To begin 

the process, Section 4 requires Reclamation to notify cooperating 

agencies of proposed projects within 30 days and establishes a process by which Reclamation explains the process and the proposed 

project, establishes a schedule for the project and consults with cooperating agencies. Section 4 also requires that Reclamation prepare a unified environmental review document for each qualifying 

project, incorporating a single environmental record on which all 

cooperating agencies shall base project approval decisions, and to 

maintain a consolidated administrative record of the information 

assembled. Finally, Section 4 requires that all project data, to the 

extent practicable and consistent with existing law, be submitted 

6 

to Reclamation as the lead agency and made available online to the 

public. 

Section 5 establishes the Cooperating Agency responsibilities, including adhering to the coordinated schedule set by Reclamation, 

cooperating with compilation of the environmental record and adhering to it for all decisions, and submitting all relevant data to 

Reclamation in a generally accessible format. 

Section 6 establishes the process for third party financial contributions to the ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ review process and requires that 

the Secretary of the Interior shall remain impartial in all decision 

making with respect to permits both substantively and procedurally. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1654 was introduced on March 21, 2017, by Congressman 

Tom McClintock (R–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Water, Power and Oceans. On April 26, 2017, the Full Natural 

Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee 

on Water, Power and Oceans was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman McClintock offered amendment designated #1. 

It was adopted by voice vote. No further amendments were offered 

and on April 27, 2017, the bill as amended was ordered favorably 

reported by a bipartisan roll call of 24 ayes to 16 noes, as follows: 

7 


Insert offset folio 8 here HR166.001
8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

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

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2017. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1654, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora Swanson. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1654—Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act 

H.R. 1654 would direct the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to act 

as the lead federal agency for coordinating with 17 western states 

for issuing permits to construct new water storage projects on land 

managed by the Department of the Interior or the Department of 

Agriculture. The bill also would impose deadlines for carrying out 

certain activities related to each project. Based on information from 

BOR and other federal agencies, CBO estimates that implementing 

those provisions would cost about $1 million a year for staff to coordinate agency reviews, to consolidate project data and documentation, to review projects, and for regional directors to review 

permits. Such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

The bill also would authorize BOR to receive and spend funds 

contributed by nonfederal public entities to expedite the evaluation 

of permit applications for new projects. (With the aim of ensuring 

impartiality, amounts collected under the bill would not be used to 

cover the cost of final reviews required by regional directors; such 

spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds.) The amount collected each year would depend on the number of participants willing to contribute funds to expedite their permits. Based on an analysis of information from BOR, CBO estimates that in most years BOR would collect and spend less than 

$500,000 for such purposes and that the net effect on direct spendVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:46 Jun 13, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR166.XXX HR166
9 

ing would be negligible. Because implementing those provisions 

would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting H.R. 1654 would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 1654 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill 

would benefit public entities by expediting permits for federal 

water supply projects that serve those entities. Any costs incurred 

by state, local, or tribal governments that participate as cooperating agencies, including cost-sharing contributions, would result 

from voluntary commitments. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aurora Swanson (for 

federal costs) and Jon Sperl (for intergovernmental mandates). The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate 

Federal and State permitting processes relating to the construction 

of new surface water storage projects on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead 

agency for permit processing. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

(10) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 1654 would impose arbitrary deadlines for completing key 

environmental reviews for new water storage projects and create 

an ill-conceived new review process at odds with the existing review process established under key laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Section 3 of the bill establishes the Bureau of Reclamation as the 

lead agency for all reviews, permits, approvals, and other requirements necessary for project construction. As lead agency, the Bureau of Reclamation could dictate deadlines and scope for environmental reviews, thereby undermining the management authority of 

expert federal agencies charged with implementing our nation’s 

most important environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. Other bill sections mandate various 

deadlines and timelines for completing environmental reviews, determining project schedules, and consulting with cooperating agencies. The bill arises out of the Majority’s notion that environmental 

regulations are a significant impediment to the construction of new 

dams. 

Not a single water storage project has been denied construction 

because of a lack of coordination between the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies or because of delays associated with review 

or permitting. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, project economics, pricing, and repayment challenges are the primary reasons 

for some projects being authorized but not constructed—not environmental compliance or a lack of coordination. 

It is far from clear if the review process established in H.R. 1654 

would dovetail or overlap with processes for review that already exists under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, NEPA, and 

other major laws. For example, the bill’s definition of ‘‘cooperating 

agency’’ conflicts with the definition of ‘‘cooperating agency’’ established under NEPA, which establishes tribal, local, state, and federal entities as potential cooperating agencies. In addition, the legislation uses undefined terms such as ‘‘unified environmental review document’’ with no further explanation. The confusion this bill 

would cause, coupled with the compressed timeframe it mandates 

to establish the merits of projects, will likely make favorable recommendations for construction projects less probable. For these 

reasons, we oppose H.R. 1654. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, House 

Committee on Natural Resources. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, 

Ranking Member. 

JARED HUFFMAN, 

11 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water, Power 

and Oceans. 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Member of Congress. 

DARREN SOTO, Member of Congress. 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations. 

DONALD S. BEYER, Jr., 

Member of Congress. 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, 

Member of Congress. 

JIMMY PANETTA, 

Member of Congress. 

Æ