59–010 

Calendar No. 631 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–353 

WESTERN WATER SUPPLY AND PLANNING 

ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2016 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2902] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 2902) to provide for long-term water supplies, 

optimal use of existing water supply infrastructure, and protection 

of existing water rights, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

1. Beginning on page 4, strike line 7 and all that follows through 

page 13, line 5, and insert the following: 

SEC. 101. RESERVOIR OPERATION IMPROVEMENT. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) OPERATIONAL DOCUMENT.—The term ‘‘operational 

document’’ includes a water control plan, water control 

manual, water control diagram, release schedule, rule 

curve, operational agreement with a non-Federal entity, and any associated environmental documentation. 

(2) RESERVED WORKS.—The term ‘‘reserved works’’ 

means any Bureau of Reclamation project facility at 

which the Secretary of the Interior carries out the operation and maintenance of the project facility. 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the 

Secretary of the Army. 

(4) TRANSFERRED WORKS.—The term ‘‘transferred 

works’’ means a Bureau of Reclamation project facility, 

the operation and maintenance of which is carried out 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

by a non-Federal entity, under the provisions of a formal operation and maintenance transfer contract. 

(5) TRANSFERRED WORKS OPERATING ENTITY.—The 

term ‘‘transferred works operating entity’’ means the 

organization that is contractually responsible for operation and maintenance of transferred works. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the House of Representatives a report including, for any 

State in which a county designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a drought disaster area during water year 

2015 is located, a list of projects, including Corps of Engineers projects, and those non-Federal projects and transferred works that are operated for flood control in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to 

section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly 

known as the ‘‘Flood Control Act of 1944’’) (58 Stat. 890, 

chapter 665), including, as applicable— 

(1) the year the original operational documents were 

approved; 

(2) the year for any subsequent revisions to the 

operational documents; 

(3) a list of projects for which— 

(A) operational deviations for drought contingency have been requested; 

(B) the status of the request; and 

(C) a description of how water conservation and 

water quality improvements were addressed; and 

(4) a list of projects for which permanent or seasonal 

changes to flood control capacity have been requested, 

and the status of the request. 

(c) IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Not later 

than 60 days after the date of completion of the report 

under subsection (b), the Secretary shall identify any 

projects described in the report— 

(1) for which the modification of the operational document, including flood control rule curve, would be 

likely to enhance existing authorized project purposes; 

(2) for which the operational documents and 

hydrometeorological information establishing the flood 

control rule curves of the project have not been substantially revised during the 15-year period ending on 

the date of review by the Secretary; and 

(3) for which individuals or entities responsible for 

operations and maintenance costs or that have storage 

entitlements or contracts at a Corps of Engineers 

project, the owner of a non-Federal project, or the nonFederal transferred works operating entity, as applicable, has submitted to the Secretary a written request 

to revise operational documents, including flood control rule curves, based on the use of improved weather 

forecasting or run-off forecasting methods, new waterVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

shed data, changes to project operations, or structural 

improvements. 

(d) PILOT PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of identification of projects under subsection (c), 

if any, the Secretary shall carry out not less than 15 

pilot projects, which shall include not less than 6 nonFederal projects, to implement revisions of operational 

documents, including flood control rule curves, based 

on the best available science, which may include— 

(A) forecast-informed operations; 

(B) new watershed data, including data submitted by a non-Federal applicant; and 

(C) if applicable, in the case of non-Federal 

projects, structural improvements. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—In implementing a pilot project 

under this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with 

all affected interests, including— 

(A) entities responsible for operations and maintenance costs of a Federal facility; 

(B) individuals and entities with storage entitlements; 

(C) a Federal power management agency that 

markets power produced by a facility; and 

(D) local agencies with flood control responsibilities downstream of a facility. 

(e) COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL PROJECT ENTI- TIES.—If a project identified under subsection (c) is— 

(1) A Non-Federal Project, the Secretary, prior to 

carrying out an activity under this section, shall— 

(A) consult with the non-Federal project owner; 

and 

(B) enter into a cooperative agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other agreement 

with the non-Federal project owner describing the 

scope and goals of the activity and the coordination among the parties; and 

(2) A Federal Project, the Secretary, prior to carrying out an activity under this section, shall— 

(A) consult with each Federal and non-Federal 

entity (including a municipal water district, irrigation district, joint powers authority, transferred 

works operating entity, or other local governmental entity) that currently— 

(i) manages (in whole or in part) the Federal dam or reservoir; or 

(ii) is responsible for operations and maintenance costs; and 

(B) enter into a cooperative agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other agreement 

with each such entity describing the scope and 

goals of the activity and the coordination among 

the parties. 

(f) CONSIDERATION.—In designing and implementing a 

forecast-informed reservoir operations plan under subVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

section (d) or subsection (g), the Secretary may consult 

with the appropriate agencies within the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Commerce with expertise in atmospheric, meteorological, and hydrologic science 

to consider— 

(1) the relationship between ocean and atmospheric 

conditions, including— 

(A) the El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a cycles; and 

(B) the potential for above-normal, normal, and 

below-normal rainfall for the coming water year, 

including consideration of atmospheric river forecasts; 

(2) the precipitation and runoff index specific to the 

basin and watershed of the relevant dam or reservoir, 

including incorporating knowledge of hydrological and 

meteorological conditions that influence the timing 

and quantity of runoff; 

(3) improved hydrologic forecasting for precipitation, 

snowpack, and soil moisture conditions; 

(4) an adjustment of operational flood control rule 

curves to optimize authorized project purposes, without a reduction in flood safety; and 

(5) proactive management in response to changes in 

forecasts. 

(g) FUNDING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may accept and expend amounts from entities described in subsection 

(d)(2), the owners of non-Federal projects regulated for 

flood control by the Secretary, and public or private 

entities holding contracts with the Federal Government for water storage or water supply at Federal 

projects to fund all or a portion of the cost of carrying 

out a review or revision of operational documents for— 

(A) a Corps of Engineers project; 

(B) a non-Federal project regulated for flood 

control by the Secretary; or 

(C) a Bureau of Reclamation facility regulated 

for flood control by the Secretary. 

(2) INCLUSION.—Funds received from entities under 

paragraph (1) may include amounts provided by nonFederal entities through agreements, partnerships, or 

joint ventures with public or private nonprofit entities 

or Indian tribes. 

(3) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may accept and use materials and services contributed by an 

entity under this paragraph and credit the value of 

the materials and services toward the cost of carrying 

out a review or revisions of operational documents. 

(h) EFFECT.— (1) MANUAL REVISIONS.—A revision of an operational 

document shall not reduce the water supply available 

for any authorized purposes of a Federal project or the 

existing purposes of a non-Federal project regulated 

for flood control by the Secretary. 

(2) EFFECT OF SECTION.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

(A) Nothing in this section authorizes the Secretary to carry out, at a Federal dam or reservoir, 

any project or activity for a purpose not otherwise 

authorized as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

(B) Nothing in this section affects or modifies 

any obligation of the Secretary under State law. 

(C) Nothing in this section affects or modifies 

any obligation to comply with any applicable Federal law. 

(3) APPLICATION.— (A) CERTAIN FACILITIES.—This section applies 

only to a facility located in a State in which a Bureau of Reclamation project is located. 

(B) CERTAIN PROJECTS EXCLUDED.—This section 

shall not apply to— 

(i) any project authorized by the Act of December 31, 1928 (43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.) (commonly known as the ‘‘Boulder Canyon Project 

Act’’); or 

(ii) the initial units of the Colorado River 

Storage Project, as authorized by the first section of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 

620) (commonly known as the ‘‘Colorado River 

Storage Project Act’’). 

(C) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RESERVED WORKS

EXCLUDED.—This section— 

(i) shall not apply to any dam or reservoir 

operated by the Bureau of Reclamation as a 

reserved work, unless all non-Federal project 

sponsors of a reserved work jointly provide to 

the Secretary a written request for application 

of this section to the project; and 

(ii) shall apply only to Bureau of Reclamation transferred works at the written request 

of the transferred works operating entity. 

(i) PRIOR STUDIES.—In carrying out subsections (b), (c), 

and (d), to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 

shall— 

(1) coordinate with the efforts of the Secretary to 

complete the reports required under subparagraphs 

(A)(iii) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) of section 1046 of 

the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 

2014 (33 U.S.C. 2319 note, 128 Stat. 1251); and 

(2) consider the findings of the reports described in 

paragraph (1) if the reports are available prior to carrying out subsections (b), (c), and (d). 

(j) MODIFICATIONS TO MANUALS AND CURVES.—Not later 

than 180 days after the date of completion of a modification to an operational document, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Environment and Public Works 

and Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 

Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and 

Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report regarding the components of the forecast-based reservoir operations plan incorporated into the change. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

2. Beginning on page 19, line 24, strike ‘‘shall—’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(1) fund’’ on page 20, line 1, and insert ‘‘shall fund’’. 

3. On page 20, line 7, strike the semicolon at the end and insert 

a period. 

4. Beginning on page 20, strike line 8 and all that follows 

through page 21, line 3. 

5. On page 22, line 7, strike ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$8,000,000’’. 

6. Beginning on page 102, strike line 22 and all that follows 

through page 103, line 5, and insert the following: 

water right beyond any applicable limitations under State 

water law; or 

(4) the modification of the terms and conditions 

7. On page 107, line 15, strike ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$30,900,000’’. 

8. On page 108, line 3, strike ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$30,900,000’’. 

9. On page 108, line 6, strike ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$30,900,000’’. 

10. On page 110, line 1, strike ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$30,900,000’’. 

11. On page 124, line 7, strike ‘‘75’’ and insert ‘‘65’’. 

12. On page 124, line 15, strike ‘‘75’’ and insert ‘‘65’’. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2902 is to provide for long-term water supplies, 

optimal use of existing water supply infrastructure, and protection 

of existing water rights. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Across the West, federal agencies, farmers, American Indian 

tribes, irrigation districts, and a broad array of others face a wide 

range of water-related challenges including drought, aging infrastructure, limited supply and competing uses, and lengthy permitting processes. In the face of prolonged drought, the Colorado River 

Basin states have joined together in a ‘‘system conservation program’’ that includes water conservation projects designed to reduce 

the demands on Lake Mead’s water supply. Despite the program’s 

success, there is continuing risk that water elevations in the Colorado River system could drop to levels that would trigger shortages. In addition, the federal water storage permitting process for 

analyzing the feasibility, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts of dams and other infrastructure is often lengthy, complex, 

and costly as multiple agencies are involved. While cost efficiencies 

and feasibility are the major barriers to developing new storage, 

addressing the length of reviews and number of agencies involved 

is often cited by proponents as further hindering the opportunities 

to develop needed storage. The maintenance backlog at Bureau of 

Reclamation facilities is significantly hindering the agency’s ability 

to ensure the upkeep of existing infrastructure and completion of 

needed rural water projects. Similarly, challenges at the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs hamper the agency’s ability to complete water related projects and improvements in a timely fashion. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2902 was introduced on May 9, 2016, by Senator Flake. Original cosponsors include Senators Barrasso, McCain, Risch, Heller, 

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

May 17, 2016. 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in open 

business session on July 13, 2016, and ordered S. 2902 favorably 

reported as amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 

open business session on July 13, 2016, by a recorded vote of 12– 

10, with a quorum present, ordered S. 2902 as amended reported 

S. 2902 and recommends that the Senate pass the bill if amended 

as described herein. 

The roll call vote on reporting the measure was 12 yeas and 10 

nays, as follows: 

YEAS NAYS 

Ms. Murkowski Ms. Cantwell 

Mr. Barrasso Mr. Wyden 

Mr. Risch Mr. Sanders * 

Mr. Lee Ms. Stabenow 

Mr. Flake Mr. Franken * 

Mr. Cassidy Mr. Manchin * 

Mr. Gardner Mr. Heinrich 

Mr. Daines Ms. Hirono * 

Mr. Portman Mr. King 

Mr. Hoeven Ms. Warren 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Capito 

* Indicates vote by proxy. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

During its consideration of S. 2902, the Committee adopted 12 

amendments that would: (1) modify the reservoir operations provisions to ensure affected interests are consulted by federal agencies 

implementing a pilot project and provided for contributions of nonFederal funds by public or private non-profit entities or Indian 

tribes through agreements partnerships or joint-ventures; (2) strike 

language regarding the release or delivery of surplus water in Lake 

Mead; and, (3) reduce the total authorization funding levels in the 

bill by $89 million; and (4) strike redundant language regarding 

applicability of state water law in the water rights protection provision. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

TITLE I—LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS FOR WESTERN 

STATES SUBJECT TO DROUGHT 

SUBTITLE A—WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS

Section 101. Reservoir operations 

Section 101 provides the authority for not less than 15 pilot 

projects to be carried out to update flood control operations 

(USACE, USBR, or non-federal) in order to ensure application of 

the best available science, including up-to-date forecasting methods 

and hydrology, to enhance water supply and other benefits. 

Section 102. Authority to make the entire active capacity of 

Fontenelle Reservoir available for use 

Section 102 provides authority for the Secretary of Interior to 

enter into cooperative agreements with the state of Wyoming to 

make improvements to the Fontenelle Reservoir to use the entire 

active capacity of the Reservoir. 

Section 103. Saltcedar control efforts 

Section 103 directs a study by the National Academy of Sciences 

on the effectiveness of tamarisk/salt cedar control efforts as well as 

specifying existing authorities that could be used to implement 

such controls and a list of Federal permits that would be required 

by such a program. It also requires a report on a plan to implement 

such a program. 

Section 104. Colorado River system 

Section 104 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a voluntary program to increase water in Colorado River reservoirs and 

authorizes $8 million per year for 10 years to carry out this section. 

SUBTITLE B—PROTECTING CRITICAL WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS

Section 111. Definitions 

Section 111 provides definitions for this title. 

Section 112. Analysis of only two alternatives in proposed collaborative management activities 

Section 112 provides the agency with authority for limiting evaluation in permit processed for forest and wildland restoration activities on Federal Lands in critical water supply watersheds assuming certain criteria are met to only two alternatives: (1) the 

management activity as proposed; and (2) the alternative of no action. 

Section 113. Categorical exclusion to expedite certain critical response actions 

Section 113 provides authority to the Secretary concerned to use 

a categorical exclusion to carry out a management activity on National Forest System land or public land under certain conditions 

and within certain criteria. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Section 114. Compliance with land use plans 

Section 114 directs that a management activity covered by a categorical exclusion granted by this provision shall be conducted in 

a manner consistent with the applicable land use plan. 

SUBTITLE C—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TRANSPARENCY ACT

Section 121. Short title 

Section 121 provides the title for the section. 

Section 122. Findings 

Section 122 describes the findings for the subtitle. 

Section 123. Definitions 

Section 123 provides the definitions for the subtitle. 

Section 124. Asset management report enhancements for reserved 

works 

Section 124 requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit to 

Congress a report on the efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation to 

manage its infrastructure assets, including reserved works—facilities owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation—and a detailed assessment and ranking of major repair and rehabilitation 

needs for all reserved works. 

Section 125. Asset management report enhancements for transferred 

works 

Section 125 requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop requirements for Asset Management Reports for transferred works— 

facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation but operated by others—and develop and implement a rating system to prioritize efforts to address major repair and rehabilitation needs for transferred works. 

Section 126. Offset 

Section 126 provides a two million dollar reduction in authorizations to offset the estimated additional cost to carry out this section. 

SUBTITLE D—WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

Section 131. Short title 

Section 131 provides the short title of the subtitle. 

Section 132. Definitions 

Section 132 provides the definitions used in the subtitle. 

Section 133. Establishment of lead agency and cooperating agencies 

Section 133 establishes the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead 

agency for a wide range of activities related to coordinating new 

water supply projects. Agency action would include coordination of 

all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements, permits, licenses, or 

other approvals required under Federal law. It also directs that the 

Commissioner of Reclamation identify and notify, as early as pracVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

ticable, any other federal agency that will have jurisdiction, and 

play a role in activities associated with a project. 

Section 134. Bureau responsibilities 

Section 134 describes the principal responsibilities of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, including serving as the point of contact for applicants for projects, state agencies, and others. The Bureau would 

also provide direction and coordination of all federal agency reviews 

necessary for project development and construction of qualified 

project as well as preparation of unified environmental documentation that will serve as the basis for all federal decisions necessary 

to authorize the use of federal lands and construction of qualifying 

projects. 

Section 135. Cooperating agency responsibilities 

Section 135 describes cooperating agency responsibilities, including the need for the head of each agency to submit a timeframe to 

the Bureau under which the cooperating agency will reasonably be 

able to complete its authorized responsibilities. 

Section 136. Funding to process permits 

Section 136 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to accept and expend funds contributed by a non-federal public entity to expedite 

the evaluation of a permit related to a qualifying project. 

SUBTITLE E—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING ACT

Section 141. Short title 

Section 141 provides the short title of the subtitle. 

Section 142. Definitions 

Section 142 provides the definitions used in the subtitle. 

Section 143. Acceleration of studies 

Section 143 directs that, to the extent practicable, a project study 

initiated by the Secretary of Interior shall result in the completion 

of a final feasibility report not later than three years after the date 

of initiation, have a maximum Federal cost of $3 million, and ensure personnel from the local project, region, and headquarters concurrently conduct the required reviews. The section also prescribes 

other guidance regarding the acceleration of studies and requires 

reports to Congress on the implementation of the required reforms. 

Section 144. Expedited completion of reports 

Section 144 requires the Secretary of Interior to expedite the 

completion of any ongoing project study initiated before the date of 

enactment of the Act, and if the Secretary determines the project 

is justified in a completed report, proceed directly to 

preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project. 

Section 145. Project acceleration 

Section 145 establishes process reforms to promote timely completion of project studies and environmental reviews for project 

studies. Among other steps, the section requires the Secretary to 

develop a coordinated environmental review process for the develVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

opment of project studies. The Section also imposes financial penalties on the agency for failure to render a decision relating to applicable project studies. 

Section 146. Annual report to Congress 

Section 146 requires that by February 1 of each year, the Secretary shall submit to relevant committees of Congress a report 

that, among other things, provides a description of the status, benefits, and costs of Bureau of Reclamation projects, reports, and 

studies that require specific congressional authorization, proposed 

project studies, and proposed modifications to authorized projects. 

TITLE II—PROTECTING EXISTING WATER RIGHTS 

Section 201. Short title 

Section 201 establishes the short title for the title. 

Section 202. Definitions 

Section 202 establishes definitions for title 

Section 203. Applicability 

Section 203 makes clear that this title applies to each action by 

the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior to, among 

other actions, issue, renew, amend, or extend any permit, approval, 

license, allotment, or easement. 

Section 204. Prohibitions 

Section 204 prohibits the Secretary from conditioning or withholding action, in whole or in part, on— (1) the transfer of any 

State water right to the United States or any other designee; or (2) 

the acquisition of a State water right in the name of the United 

States. This Section also prohibits the Secretary from (1) limiting 

the date, time, quantity, location of diversion or pumping, or place 

of use of a State water right beyond any applicable limitation 

under State water law; or (2) the modification of the terms and 

conditions of groundwater withdrawal, guidance and reporting procedures, and conservation and source protection measures established by a State. 

Section 205. Policy development 

Section 205 requires that in developing a rule, policy, directive 

or other similar federal action, the Secretary shall recognize the 

authority of States to evaluate, protect, and regulate groundwater 

and shall coordinate with states to ensure any federal action, such 

as a rule or directive, is consistent with, and imposes no greater 

restriction or regulatory requirement than applicable state law. 

Section 206. Effect of title 

Section 206 includes seven savings provisions clarifying that 

nothing in the title limits or expands and reserved water right of 

the Federal Government on land administered by the Secretary, affects implementation of the Endangered Species Act, or limits or 

expands the Federal Power Act. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

TITLE III—COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING RURAL WATER 

SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDIAN IRRIGATION 

PROJECTS 

SUBTITLE A—THE IRRIGATION REHABILITATION AND RENOVATION FOR

INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR ECONOMIES (IRRIGATE) ACT

Section 301. Short title 

Section 301 establishes the short title for the title. 

Section 302. Definitions 

Section 302 establishes definitions for title. 

PART I—INDIAN IRRIGATION FUND

Section 311. Establishment 

Section 311 establishes an Indian Irrigation Fund that will consist of amounts deposited in the Fund plus interest earned on investment of the Fund. 

Section 312. Deposits to Fund 

Section 312 authorizes deposits of $30.9 million annually into the 

Indian Irrigation Fund (Fund) each year from Fiscal Year 2017 to 

2038 of funds that would otherwise be deposited into the Reclamation Fund. 

Section 313. Expenditures from Fund 

Section 313 establishes that the Secretary of the Interior may expend not more than $30.9 million and interest accrued for each of 

Fiscal Years 2017 through 2038, subject to appropriations. The Secretary may expend more than $30.9 million if additional funds are 

available in the Fund as a result of a failure of the Secretary to 

expend all the amounts available in 1 or more prior years. 

Section 314. Investments of amounts 

Section 314 establishes that the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

invest excess amounts from the Fund if there is enough money to 

meet current withdrawals. Interest accrued and any sales from 

such investments shall be credited to and become a part of the 

Fund. 

Section 315. Transfers of amounts 

Section 315 provides that amounts to be transferred in the Indian Irrigation Fund shall be transferred at least monthly from the 

general fund on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Section 316. Termination 

Section 316 provides that at the end of Fiscal Year 2038, the Indian Irrigation Fund shall terminate and the unexpended and unobligated balances of the funds shall be returned to the reclamation 

fund. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

PART II—REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN

INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS

Section 321. Repair, replacement, and maintenance of certain Indian irrigation projects 

Section 321 requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a 

program to address the deferred maintenance needs of Indian irrigation projects that: pose risks to public or employee safety or natural or cultural resources or impede management and efficiency. 

The section also requires that the Secretary of the Interior shall 

transfer $30.9 million, plus any accrued interest, from the Fund to 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) every year from 2017 to 2038 

to carry out the program to address the deferred maintenance 

needs of Indian irrigation projects. This section also ensures that 

the funds expended shall not be subject to reimbursement or assessment as debt against landowners that are served by the BIA 

irrigation systems, consistent with the Federal Government’s responsibility for these systems. 

Section 322. Eligible projects 

Section 322 establishes that projects eligible for funds from the 

Indian Irrigation Fund, are specific Indian irrigation projects in the 

western United States and are owned by the Federal Government, 

managed and operated by the BIA (or Indian tribes through Indian 

Self Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts or compacts), and have documented deferred maintenance. 

Section 323. Requirements and conditions 

Section 323 requires that within 120 days after enactment the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs and representatives of affected Indian tribes, shall develop 

and submit to Congress (1) programmatic goals to carry out the 

new Indian irrigation program and (2) funding prioritization criteria to serve as a methodology for distributing the funds. 

Section 324. Study of Indian irrigation program and project management 

Section 324 establishes that within 2 years, the Secretary, acting 

through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, shall complete 

a study that evaluates options for improving programmatic and 

project management of BIA-managed Indian irrigation projects. 

The study report, to be submitted to Congress, will also include recommendations for improvement in each qualifying project area. 

Prior to conducting the study, the Secretary is required to consult 

with Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the land on which an eligible project is located and consider input of landowners served by 

the project. This section also requires the Secretary of the Interior 

to report not less frequently than every two years to Congress on 

the progress being made to improve the irrigation systems with the 

fund. 

Section 325. Tribal consultation and user input 

Section 325 establishes that, within 120 days of enactment and 

prior to spending any funds on a project, the Secretary shall conVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

sult with impacted Indian tribes and consider the input of landowners. 

Section 326. Allocation among projects 

Section 326 establishes that, for every year funding is available 

through 2038, each eligible project with critical maintenance needs 

qualifies for at least some funding. This section establishes additional considerations for prioritizing funding for Indian irrigation 

projects. 

The section also limits the total allocation for any individual 

project to no more than $15 million during any consecutive three 

year period. Notwithstanding the cap, if the full amount of $30.9 

million cannot be allocated because the costs of the remaining 

maintenance activities exceed the cap, the Secretary may allocate 

funds in accordance with this title. This section authorizes the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act to apply to 

activities under this section. 

SUBTITLE B—THE CLEAN WATER FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES ACT

Section 331. Short title 

Section 331 provides the short title for subtitle. 

Section 332. Purpose 

Section 332 establishes that the purpose of the title is to ensure 

a safe and adequate water supply for municipal, rural, and industrial customers in several counties in Montana and North Dakota. 

Sec. 333. Definitions 

Section 333 provides definitions for terms in the subtitle. 

Section 334. Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System 

Section 334 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 

the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and the 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System rural water projects, consistent with the applicable feasibility studies for each project. The 

section also authorizes cooperative agreements and cost sharing arrangements between the Federal government and the applicable 

water system authorities. 

Section 335. Use of power from Pick-Sloan program by DryRedwater Regional Water Authority System 

Section 335 authorizes the Western Area Power Administrator to 

provide electric power—up to 1.5 megawatts—to the Dry-Redwater 

Regional Water System under certain conditions (including rates to 

be set by the Administrator) to meet the systems’ needs regarding 

pumping stations, water treatment facilities and storage tanks 

among others. The cost of additional power if needed, would be reimbursed to the Western Area Power Administration by the DryRedwater Regional Water Authority. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Section 336. Water rights 

Section 336 makes clear that nothing in the subtitle preempts or 

affects any state water law or state authority to manage water resources within that state. 

Section 337. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 337 authorizes to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the planning, design, and construction of the 

Water Systems, substantially in accordance with the applicable 

cost estimates. 

TITLE VI—OFFSET 

Sec. 401. Accelerated revenue, repayment, and surface water storage 

enhancement 

Section 401 directs the Department of the Interior to convert any 

existing water service contracts between the United States and 

water users’ associations to repayment contracts to allow for prepayment of such contracts, upon the request of the water users association. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided 

by the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 12, 2016. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2902, the Western Water 

Supply and Planning Enhancement Act of 2016. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

S. 2902—Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act of 

2016 

Summary: S. 2902 would direct the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) to convert water service contracts with water districts in 17 

western states to repayment contracts if a contractor requests it, 

which would allow contractors to repay their share of capital costs 

to the federal government earlier than would otherwise occur under 

current law. CBO estimates that accelerating those payments 

would, on net, increase offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, by $635 million over the next 10 years. 

Additionally, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 

expects that some nonfederal water contractors would finance those 

accelerated payments to the government with bonds that are exVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

empt from federal taxation. JCT estimates that enacting the legislation would decrease revenues by $77 million over the 2017–2026 

period. 

On net, CBO estimates that those changes in direct spending and 

revenues would decrease budget deficits over that 10-year period by 

$558 million. Because enacting the bill would affect direct spending 

and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

S. 2902 also would authorize multiple water projects. Based on 

information from BOR and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $319 

million over the next five years and $669 million over the 2017– 

2026 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized and estimated amounts. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net di- rect spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 2902 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: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 2902 is shown in table 1. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS UNDER S. 2902 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017–2021 2017–2026 

INCREASES OR DECREASES (¥) IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority a ........................................................................................................... ¥170 ¥350 ¥396 ¥165 39 83 82 81 81 80 ¥1,042 ¥635 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................................................................ ¥170 ¥350 ¥396 ¥165 39 83 82 81 81 80 ¥1,042 ¥635 

DECREASES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues b ...................................................................................................................... * ¥2 ¥4 ¥7 ¥9 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥22 ¥77 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES 

Effect on Deficit ............................................................................................................................... ¥170 ¥348 ¥392 ¥158 48 94 93 92 92 91 ¥1,020 ¥558 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................................................................................... 50 75 90 77 78 78 65 66 67 68 370 714 Estimated Outlays ............................................................................................................................ 27 54 81 80 77 78 70 68 67 67 319 669 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. * = between zero and ¥$500,000. a CBO estimates that offsetting receipts would decline by $1.1 billion in years after 2026 for a net loss of about $470 million over the next 30 years. b Estimates prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

1 Agreements between the federal government and water contractors for delivering water for 

irrigation, municipal, and industrial purposes from federally built projects are generally governed by either water service contracts or repayment contracts. Water service contracts are used 

when construction of a project is still in progress and the final costs—including the contractors’ 

share of those costs—are not yet known. They are also used when a contractor does not want 

a permanent contract. Repayment contracts are available to contractors when final construction 

costs and the contractor’s share of those costs are known. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2902 

will be enacted near the end of 2016. 

Direct spending 

BOR delivers water under 860 water service and repayment contracts in 17 western states. In addition to paying for the water, 

contractors also pay for a portion of the estimated capital costs of 

constructing the reservoirs and conveyance systems that store and 

deliver that water. CBO estimates that in each of the next several 

years, those contractors will pay about $245 million annually for 

their share of construction costs (including interest) to the federal 

government. Collectively those water contractors have an outstanding obligation to the government of about $5.5 billion (including principal and interest) over the next 30 years. 

Generally, BOR contractors receive water under service contracts 

until construction of an entire project is complete. At that time, 

new contracts are negotiated (known as repayment contracts) with 

annual payments adjusted to reflect the final capital costs. The repayment period under those contracts cannot exceed 40 years and 

water contractors typically cannot pay their share of the construction costs on an accelerated schedule.1

S. 2902 would require BOR to convert any water service contract 

to a repayment contract if the contractor requests it. Amounts due 

under such a repayment contract would be based on an estimate 

of final costs if construction of the project is not yet complete. 

Under the bill, contractors that choose to convert would be required 

to repay their share of the capital costs of the project on an accelerated schedule. Those contractors that are already operating under 

repayment contracts would have the option to repay the government on an accelerated schedule. 

Under the bill irrigation contractors would pay, either in one 

lump sum or in equal installments over three years, the present 

value of their future contract payments discounted at one-half of 

the 20-year maturity rate for Treasury securities. Municipal and 

industrial contractors would be required to prepay their entire outstanding principal balance in a lump sum. 

Based on information from BOR about the terms of current 

water contracts, CBO expects that about 35 percent of the current 

contractors would choose to convert to repayment contracts in the 

first few years after the bill’s enactment. CBO estimates the receipts from those accelerated payments would total $1.4 billion over 

the 2017–2026 period. During the same period there would be a 

corresponding loss of annual repayments (including applicable interest costs) that would otherwise occur totaling $807 million. On 

net, under S. 2902, CBO estimates that offsetting receipts would 

increase by $635 million over the 2017–2026 period. However, the 

reduction in offsetting receipts after 2026 would be greater than 

the net increase in receipts that would occur over the 2017–2026 

period. CBO estimates that the net loss in offsetting receipts from 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

enacting this provision would total about $470 million over the 

next 30 years. 

Revenues 

JCT estimates that some of the accelerated payments from water 

districts to the federal government would be financed with bonds 

that are exempt from federal taxation and that issuing those bonds 

would lead to a revenue loss of $77 million over the next 10 years. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that implementing the dis- cretionary components of the bill would cost $319 million over the 

2017–2021 period and $669 million over the 2017–2026 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized and estimated amounts. 

TABLE 2.—INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER S. 2902 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017– 

2021 

2017– 

2026 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Indian Irrigation Projects: 

Estimated Authorization 

Level ......................... 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 158 320 

Estimated Outlays ........ 15 23 30 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 133 294 

Rural Water Projects: 

Estimated Authorization 

Level ......................... 3 14 30 31 32 33 20 21 22 22 110 229 

Estimated Outlays ........ 2 9 22 28 31 32 25 23 21 22 93 216 

Colorado River Basin 

Projects: 

Authorization Level ....... 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 40 80 

Estimated Outlays ........ 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 36 76 

Accelerating Project Reviews: 

Estimated Authorization 

Level ......................... 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 29 54 

Estimated Outlays ........ 4 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 26 51 

Other Provisions: 

Estimated Authorization 

Level ......................... 2 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 

Estimated Outlays ........ 1 10 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 

Total Increases: 

Estimated Authorization Level .... 50 75 90 77 78 78 65 66 67 68 370 714 

Estimated Outlays 27 54 81 80 77 78 70 68 67 67 319 669 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Indian Irrigation Projects. S. 2902 would establish a new Indian Irrigation Fund and transfer $31 million from the existing Reclamation Fund into the proposed fund each year over the 2017– 

2038 period. The bill would authorize the appropriation of those 

annual deposits (plus any interest credited to the fund) to maintain 

irrigation projects owned by the federal government and operated 

by BIA. According to BIA, the agency operates 18 Indian irrigation 

projects that would be eligible to receive appropriated funds under 

the bill, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would 

cost $294 million over the 2017–2026 period and about $390 million thereafter. 

Rural Water Projects. S. 2902 would authorize the construction 

of two water projects for treatment, storage and delivery of water 

to rural communities in Montana and North Dakota. Based on inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

formation from BOR, CBO estimates that the federal share (65 percent) of costs for constructing those projects would total $216 million over the 2017–2026 period. Those projects and their respective 

costs are described below: • The Dry-Redwater Rural Water Project in Montana would 

construct water treatment and distribution facilities to deliver 

water to existing storage tanks in rural communities in eastern 

Montana and a small area in northwestern North Dakota. 

Based on information from BOR, including adjustments for anticipated inflation as specified by the bill, CBO estimates that 

the federal share of costs for constructing this project would 

total $151 million over the 2017–2026 period and about $57 

million after 2026. • The Musselshell-Judith Rural Water Project located in 

Montana would construct groundwater wells and distribution 

facilities to deliver water to rural communities in central Montana. Based on information from BOR, including adjustments 

for anticipated inflation as specified by the bill, CBO estimates 

that the federal share of costs for constructing the project 

would total $65 million over the 2017–2026 period. 

Colorado River Basin Projects. S. 2902 would permanently authorize a pilot program to construct water storage projects on some 

reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin that is scheduled to expire 

in 2018. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $8 million 

a year to provide grants to certain public entities for projects that 

would increase water storage capacity. The bill also would authorize BOR to provide grants for renewing or implementing existing 

agreements with nonfederal public entities that focus on conserving 

water to mitigate drought conditions. Based on historical spending 

patterns for similar projects, CBO estimates that implementing 

those provisions would cost $76 million over the 2017–2026 period. 

Accelerating Project Reviews. S. 2902 would establish BOR as 

the lead federal agency to coordinate with states, other federal 

agencies, and the public to: 

• Expedite environmental reviews and evaluations of permit 

applications, 

• Facilitate early detection and resolution of environmental 

issues, and 

• Construct a publicly accessible database that would include a list of requirements for the study for each project and 

information on the progress toward completing each requirement. 

S. 2902 also would require BOR to identify water projects across 

the United States that were excluded from environmental reviews 

because they were determined to have no significant effect on the 

environment. The agency would be tasked with developing guidelines for new exclusions based on the characteristics of those 

projects. 

S. 2902 would limit BOR to spending $3 million or less on studies conducted as part of its reviews; those studies would have to be 

completed within three years. If a study could not be completed 

within that period for $3 million or less, BOR would be required 

to provide written notice to the Congress and any other agencies 

involved. Finally, the bill would direct BOR to annually solicit proposals to build water projects through the Federal Register and to 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

2Saltcedar (also called tamarisk) is considered an invasive species in the western United 

States. It is a small shrub that displaces native plants and harms riparian ecosystems. 

report to the Congress on the preliminary costs and benefits of 

each of those proposals. 

Based on information from BOR and other federal agencies, CBO 

estimates that the additional activities required to implement those 

provisions would cost $51 million over the 2017–2026 period for additional staff to coordinate agency reviews, consolidate project data 

and documentation, and conduct reviews. 

Other Provisions. Other costs under S. 2902 would stem from 

provisions that would direct the Corps, in coordination with BOR, 

to identify 15 federal and nonfederal projects designed to control 

the risk of flooding in states that were declared federal disaster 

areas in 2015 because of drought. Based on information from the 

BOR and the Army Corps of Engineers, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $31 million over the 2017– 

2026 period. 

Finally, the bill would direct BOR to contract with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study to evaluate the efforts to control saltcedar in combination with increasing water supplies and improving riparian habitats.2 S. 2902 would direct BOR 

to use the results of the NAS study and develop a plan to control 

the spread of saltcedar. Based on information from BOR, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $1 million 

over the 2017–2026 period. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in Table 3. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

TABLE 3.—PAY AS YOU GO CONSIDERATIONS FOR S. 2902 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016 2021 2016 2026 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ............................................................................................................. 0 ¥170 ¥348 ¥392 ¥158 48 94 93 92 92 91 ¥1,020 ¥558 

Memorandum: 

Changes in Outlays ........................................................................................................................ 0 ¥170 ¥350 ¥396 ¥165 39 83 82 81 81 80 ¥1,042 ¥635 

Changes in Revenues ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 ¥2 ¥4 ¥7 ¥9 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 ¥22 ¥77 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2902 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

State, local, and tribal governments, as well as other public entities 

that manage water infrastructure, would benefit from greater flexibility provided in the bill to study, permit, manage, and finance 

water projects supported by federal agencies. Any costs incurred by 

those entities under agreements with federal agencies, including 

cost-sharing contributions, would result from complying with conditions of federal assistance. The bill also would benefit water user 

associations by allowing them to prepay what they own in remaining capital obligations to the federal government for their use of 

federal water infrastructure. 

Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

Previous CBO estimate: On July 14, 2015, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food 

Security Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the House Committee 

on Natural Resources on July 9, 2015. Some of the provisions of 

H.R. 2898 are similar to those in S. 2902—including those regarding the accelerated repayment of debt and expediting project reviews. CBO’s estimate of the cost of those provisions reflects current and new information about the status of debt repayments. 

On March 30, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 438, 

the IRRIGATE Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs on March 30, 2015. S. 438 and S. 2902 have similar provisions that would establish a new Indian Irrigation Fund. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal spending: Aurora Swanson; Federal revenues: Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Jon Sperl; Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, 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. 2902. 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. 2902, as ordered reported. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

S. 2902, 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The testimony provided by the Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service of Department of Agriculture before the Water and Power Subcommittee on 

May 17, 2016, follows: 

STATEMENT OF ESTEVAN LO ́ PEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU

OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Hirono and Members 

of the Subcommittee, I am Estevan Lo ́pez, Commissioner 

of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department on S. 2902, 

the Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement 

Act. Several provisions of S. 2902 include distinct and targeted provisions that touch on operational, environmental, 

planning and budget functions, many of which the Department has previously testified on. For this reason, much of 

my statement will summarize the Department’s previously 

expressed views on the proposals in those provisions rather than the bill as a whole. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE A—WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS

Section 101 of S. 2902 contains language of interest to 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Army Corps 

of Engineers. Section 101, dealing with Reservoir Operation Improvement, would direct the creation of pilot 

projects to implement revisions of water operations manuals. The Department notes that the directives of Section 

101 fall on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and 

that, pursuant to subparagraph 101(h)(3) the activities referenced would exclude Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) facilities except under certain conditions. 

Reclamation believes that maintaining operations standards that reflect both the current state of science as well 

as changes in climate and hydrology to be an important 

part of supporting water resource management. In Fiscal 

Year 2015 Reclamation began a Reservoir Operations Pilot 

Initiative as part of the WaterSMART program. Historically, uncertainties in weather prediction and assumptions 

of an unchanging climate have resulted in conservative 

federal operating criteria for reservoir management. It is 

expected that in some locations these criteria will have to 

be updated with consideration for weather forecast technology and shifts in climate conditions. In 2015 Reclamation selected five pilot studies, one within each of Reclamation’s regions, to initiate work that is expected to be completed in FY 2018 as part of the Administration’s Federal 

Drought Action Plan. The Reservoir Operations Pilot Initiative is a high priority action under Reclamation’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy with a goal to increase 

water management flexibility in light of changing conditions. These activities are critical to understanding where 

flexibilities may be increased through identifying trends in 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

historic and projected climate, hydrology, sedimentation, 

and conjunctive groundwater management. 

Section 102 would amend the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act (Public Law 84–485) to authorize Reclamation 

to increase the active capacity and, as a result, the amount 

of water developed by Fontenelle Reservoir in Wyoming. 

Reclamation appreciates the efforts of Senator Barrasso 

and his staff to work with Reclamation to address ours 

concerns identified in our June 18, 2015 testimony on similar legislation (S. 1305) before this Committee. With the 

subsequent amendment to S. 1305, the Department can 

now support this provision. 

Section 103 would require the Department and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture to enter into an arrangement 

with National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on 

the impact of salt cedar control efforts in increasing water 

supply and improving riparian habitat. The Departments 

of the Interior and Agriculture would then have 180 days 

to submit a report to Congress that describes a feasible 

plan to implement a tamarisk control plan, including a description of applicable timelines and costs. 

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted an authoritative 

study on the effectiveness of the removal of salt cedar, 

which found that the removal of salt cedar from floodplain 

areas along rivers leads can lead to replacement by other 

vegetation that consumes roughly equal amounts of water. 

The study found that removing salt cedar from these areas 

is unlikely to produce measurable water savings once replacement vegetation becomes established. We look forward to working with the bill sponsor and the Committee 

to ensure that the previous report’s conclusions are considered, and any new reporting requirements add value to our 

current understanding of salt cedar impacts. 

Section 104 would amend Section 206 of the 2015 Appropriations Act and provide additional statutory direction on 

Colorado River operations. The Department fully recognizes the severity of the ongoing historic drought in the 

Colorado River basin and the importance of proactive, consensus-based efforts to conserve the limited, and declining, 

water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Subsection 

206(a)(1), as amended, would continue Congressional direction to fund or participate in projects to increase storage 

of Colorado River water in Lake Mead and upstream reservoirs constructed under the 1956 Colorado River Storage 

Project Act. The Department supports these continued efforts. 

Subsection (a)(2) would add a new provision that would 

preclude release of Colorado River water from Lake Mead 

pursuant to a 2014 Memorandum of Understanding and 

the ongoing efforts pursuant to the Pilot System Conservation program. While the Department recognizes that the 

provisions of subsection (a)(2) are narrow in scope, the Department does not believe this section is necessary for the 

successful implementation of these efforts and is duplicative of currently applicable provisions of Departmental 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

policies and agreements already in force. Additionally, the 

language of this subsection does not appear to currently 

have consensus support among all seven Colorado River 

Basin States. We recognize that interstate cooperation is 

particularly essential in a time of increased risk of shortages on the Colorado River. We are currently investing significant effort to find solutions that will generate consensus support in the Basin, and suggest that subsection 

(a)(2) may distract from the ongoing efforts to identify consensus tools and mechanisms to contribute to conservation 

of water in the Colorado River system with broad stakeholder support. 

We believe Subsections (b) through (e) are intended to 

enhance the Department’s efforts to conserve additional 

water in the Colorado River system in a manner consistent 

with current efforts. The Department supports the goals of 

addressing ongoing drought in portions of the western 

United States and the reservoir elevations in Lakes Powell 

and Mead. The Department continues to monitor the situation and has taken a number of steps to address these 

issues. The Administration is still reviewing the full implications that these sections would have and does not have 

a position on these sections at this time. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE B—PROTECTING CRITICAL WATER SUPPLY

WATERSHEDS

Title I, Subtitle B of S. 2902 contains provisions of interest to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (We defer 

to the U.S. Forest Service on provisions of this Subtitle affecting National Forest System lands.) This subtitle seeks 

to exclude certain vegetation treatments conducted for specific purposes from the environmental analysis and public 

involvement requirements in the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). These treatments may range from hazardous fuels reduction and treatment for invasive species 

to timber harvest, and the bill sets out specific purposes 

(e.g., increase water yield) and administrative criteria (e.g., 

treatment proposed by a Resource Advisory Council) for 

these treatments. Under the bill, if the BLM’s proposed activity is for one of the enumerated purposes, the agency 

could remove vegetation under an exclusion from NEPA, 

on up to 5,000 acres. If the proposed activity also meets 

the administrative criteria of the bill, the BLM would be 

authorized to remove vegetation, under an exclusion from 

NEPA, on up to 15,000 acres. The Department opposes 

this provision because of the scale of these treatments 

without environmental analysis and public involvement as 

required in NEPA. 

Title I, Subtitle B also would limit public input through 

the NEPA process by requiring the BLM to analyze only 

the proposed action and a ‘‘no-action’’ alternative when a 

BLM proposed vegetation treatment project meets the administrative criteria set out in the bill. This provision 

would limit the breadth and value of NEPA analysis to decision-makers. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

The Department shares the sponsor’s goals of efficient 

and effective procedures. Indeed, one of the priorities 

under Secretarial Order 3336 on Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management, and Restoration (Jan 5, 2015) is to encourage efforts to expedite processes, streamline procedures and promote innovations that can improve overall 

rangeland fire prevention, suppression and restoration efficiency and effectiveness. We would be glad to discuss these 

objectives further with the bill’s sponsor. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE C—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

TRANSPARENCY ACT

Subtitle C, the Bureau of Reclamation Transparency 

Act, requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit to 

Congress a report on the efforts of Reclamation to manage 

its infrastructure assets. As stated in our June 18, 2015, 

testimony on similar legislation (S. 593), Reclamation recognizes the value in obtaining additional information on 

the status of our infrastructure. The Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act is consistent with a draft Infrastructure Investment Strategy and process Reclamation 

has initiated proactively; therefore, the Department supports this provision. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE D—WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

Subtitle D mirrors language in HR 2898 (Title VII), 

which with some modifications, largely consists of language from S. 1533 (114th), the Water Supply Permitting 

Coordination Act. Reclamation expressed concern in our 

October 8, 2015, testimony on HR 2898 before this Committee that there is already ample basis for review of 

projects and coordination among federal agencies involved 

in water supply planning, remain regarding the language 

in this current bill. 

TITLE I, SUBTITLE E—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT

STREAMLINING ACT

Subtitle E aims to facilitate and streamline Reclamation’s process for creating or expanding surface water storage under Reclamation law. As we testified on Title VIII 

of HR 2898 before this Committee, this provision would restrict the time available to establish the merits of a surface water storage project and to consider a project’s potential environmental effects. Constraining or circumventing 

project environmental reviews and permits impedes the 

opportunity to consider alternatives with potential impacts 

on communities and the environment which may be less 

adverse. Such constraints could make favorable recommendations for project construction less likely and increase the potential for delay as a result of litigation, 

which, I would note, would have the opposite effect of the 

provisions’ intentions. The Department does not support 

this provision. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

TITLE II—PROTECTING EXISTING WATER RIGHTS

Title II of S. 2902 resembles S. 982 (Barrasso), for which 

the Department provided testimony before this Subcommittee in June of 2015. While we are still analyzing 

the new language in view of the recent introduction of S. 

2902, in the Department’s June statement, we continue expressed concern that the Water Rights Protection Act legislation as drafted was overly broad, drafted in ambiguous 

terms, and would if enacted likely have numerous unintended consequences that would have adverse effects on 

existing law, tribal water rights, and voluntary agreements. We are working to ascertain the extent to which 

the Department’s previously stated concerns may or may 

not apply to Title II of S. 2902. 

TITLE III—COMPLETING AND MAINTAINING RURAL WATER

SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Title III of S. 2902 incorporates S. 438, the Irrigation 

Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act, which creates a steady 

stream of funding to repair, replace and maintain certain 

Indian irrigation projects. As stated before the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs’ March 4, 2015, hearing on S. 

438, the Department supports the goals of working with 

tribes to address the maintenance of irrigation projects, 

and we look forward to working with you to address the 

best means of doing so given current budget constraints 

and the ability of irrigation projects to financially sustain 

themselves in the long run. 

Subtitle B incorporates S. 1552, the Clean Water for 

Rural Communities Act, which would authorize construction of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System in 

the States of Montana and North Dakota. As stated in our 

June 18, 2015, testimony before this Committee, the Department cannot support this language at this time, based 

on constraints on program resources and other rural water 

project commitments. 

TITLE IV—OFFSET

Title IV includes language from Title IX of HR 2898, the 

Accelerated Revenue, Repayment and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act on which Reclamation testified before this Committee on October 8, 2015. The bill contains 

provisions to enable the conversion of any water service 

contract to a repayment contract, with allowance for prepayment. While Reclamation’s October 2015 testimony 

identified several programmatic concerns about the bill, it 

is also noteworthy that current CVP water service contracts already contain language for their eventual conversion to repayment contracts at such time that it is determined that the remaining construction costs of the CVP 

can be repaid within a specified repayment term and without adversely affecting the operations of the CVP. AddiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:13 Sep 21, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR353.XXX SR353

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

1http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/water.pdf. 

tionally, the bill proposes a one-year timeframe to convert 

existing contracts, which may not be reasonable given the 

realities of CVP operations and repayment status. 

CONCLUSION

We stand ready to work with this Committee and bill 

sponsors to find common ground on legislation that can 

complement the Administration’s efforts to assist communities impacted by drought. This concludes my written 

statement. I am pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPART- MENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S. 2902, 

Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement Act 

and S. 2524, Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act. I am Leslie 

Weldon, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System 

(NFS), USDA Forest Service. 

S. 2902, TITLE II—PROTECTING EXISTING WATER RIGHTS

Water on National Forest System (NFS) lands is important for many reasons, including fish and wildlife habitat, 

public recreation, and providing a clean and plentiful supply of water for downstream beneficial uses. Today, water 

from national forests and grasslands contributes to the 

economic and ecological vitality of rural and urban communities across the nation, and those lands supply more than 

60 million Americans with clean drinking water.1

The purposes of the NFS were established by Congress 

in 1897 and were primarily focused on the protection of 

water and watersheds and securing a continuous supply of 

timber. National forests in the arid West typically occupy 

the very top of critical watersheds, where water is stored 

in winter snow packs and underground and slowly released through the spring and into the summer. National 

forests in the East also occupy critical watersheds, preserving water quality for downstream users and moderating floods to protect downstream landowners. Communities, farmers and ranchers, Native American Tribes, and 

the general public depend on delivery of clean water from 

the national forests and grasslands. Careful consideration 

of activities that can have an adverse impact on waters 

and watersheds on NFS lands is critical to downstream 

water users and other inhabitants that can be impacted if 

these watersheds are not protected. 

USDA has not had time to fully analyze the effect of this 

bill. USDA recognizes the fundamental role of States to adjudicate water rights under state law. However, based on 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

an initial review, the bill appears to restrict USDA’s ability to protect water resources. USDA maintains its opposition to provisions in any bill that would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from regulating uses of NFS lands, or 

denying authorizations for uses of NFS lands, because 

these prohibitions have potential to adversely affect water 

resources on those lands. It is USDA’s position that the existing statutory framework protects privately-held water 

rights in balance with the ability of the Forest Service to 

protect water resources. An example of the Forest Service 

work with stakeholders within this framework is the recent publication of final directives for ski areas operating 

on NFS lands under term special use permits. 

For the last 30 years, the Forest Service has required 

ownership by the United States, either solely or in narrow 

circumstances jointly with the permit holder, of water 

rights developed on NFS lands to support operation of ski 

areas in prior appropriation doctrine states. This policy 

was motivated by the concern that if water rights used to 

support ski area operations are severed from a ski area— 

for example, are sold for other purposes—the Forest Service would lose the ability to offer the area to the public for 

skiing. 

On June 23, 2014, the Forest Service published a notice 

of a proposed directive in the Federal Register to add riparian and prior appropriation doctrine water clauses for ski 

area permits to the Forest Service’s Directive System. The 

final clauses, published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2015, were the result of extensive public input, including input from the ski industry and a wide range of 

other water rights holders. 

The final directive contains two ski area water clauses, 

one for eastern States that follow the riparian doctrine for 

water rights and one for western States that follow the 

prior appropriation doctrine for water rights. Under a riparian doctrine system, water rights are appurtenant to 

the land, whereas under a prior appropriation doctrine 

system, water rights may be severed from the land. Most 

ski areas on NFS lands are in western states that adhere 

to the prior appropriation doctrine. 

The final directive does not require that ski area water 

rights be acquired in the name of the United States. Instead, the final directive focuses on assuring sufficiency of 

water to operate ski areas on NFS lands. This modified approach for ski area permits was determined to be appropriate given the characteristics of ski area water rights 

and ski areas. Unlike water rights diverted and used on 

NFS lands by holders of other types of authorizations, ski 

area water rights may involve long-term capital expenditures. In western States like Colorado and New Mexico, 

holders of ski area permits may have to purchase senior 

water rights at considerable expense to meet current requirements for snowmaking to maintain viability. Holders 

of ski area permits need to show the value of these water 

rights as business assets, particularly during refinancing 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

or sale of a ski area. The value of these water rights is 

commensurate with the significant investment in privately 

owned improvements at ski areas. These investments were 

recognized by Congress in enactment of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act, which authorizes permit terms of 

up to 40 years. 16 U.S.C. 497b(b)(1). 

In addition to these financial issues, the land ownership 

patterns at ski areas—particularly the larger ones—often 

involve a mix of NFS and private lands inside and outside 

the ski area permit boundary, which makes it difficult to 

implement a policy of sole Federal ownership for ski area 

water rights. Much of the development at ski areas is on 

private land at the base of the mountains. As a result, 

water diverted and used on NFS lands in the ski area permit boundary is sometimes used on private land, either inside or outside the permit boundary. 

With respect to sufficiency of water for ski area operations, the final directive includes a definition for the 

phrase, ‘‘sufficient quantity of water to operate the ski 

area,’’ and clarifies when and how the holder must demonstrate sufficiency of water to operate the permitted ski 

area and new ski area water facilities; addresses availability of Federally owned ski area water rights during the 

permit term; and addresses availability of holder-owned 

ski area water rights during the permit term and upon 

permit revocation or termination. 

At this time, ski industry representatives have indicated 

support for the final directive, and members of Congress 

have indicated appreciation for the agency’s efforts to work 

collaboratively on this solution. It is USDA’s position that 

additional legislation is not necessary to ensure protection 

of privately-owned water rights. 

USDA has not had adequate time to analyze the effects 

of the bill on Forest Service groundwater policies. However, since the Forest Service published its proposed 

groundwater directive for notice and comment on May 6, 

2014, the Agency has heard from several States and other 

parties who are concerned about the intent of and language in the proposal. By the end of the comment period, 

the Agency had received 260 comments from elected officials, States, Tribes, organizations, and individuals from 

across the country. The House Natural Resources Committee, as well as several States, asked the Agency not to 

proceed with the proposed draft and to consult with them 

before moving forward. The Forest Service has heard these 

concerns and stopped work on the proposed groundwater 

directive, and the Agency will not move forward with our 

original proposal. Rather, we have committed to engaging 

with States, Tribes, and citizens to fully understand concerns and work collaboratively to address them before any 

future actions or proposals would result. Should the Forest 

Service choose to move forward with a new proposed directive in the future, it would only be after engaging with 

States and making sure that the Agency thoroughly understands their concerns in order to address them. The Forest 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

Service continues to consider improvements to direction to 

Agency staff on groundwater to maintain its stewardship 

responsibilities in a consistent, credible, and transparent 

manner. 

S. 2902, TITLE I SUBTITLE B—PROTECTING CRITICAL WATER

SUPPLY WATERSHEDS

USDA has not had adequate time to analyze the effects 

of this subtitle but upon initial review opposes NEPA provisions that are beyond the scope of Farm Bill and HFRA 

authorities. As a general matter, the Forest Service welcomes legislation that incentivizes collaboration and expands the toolset we can use to complete critical work on 

our nation’s forests, without overriding environmental 

laws. 

While we support efforts to provide tools to support improved forest management, capacity constraints due to the 

present approach to budgeting for wildfire continue to 

hinder further efforts to improve the health and resiliency 

of the nation’s forests. In fiscal year 1995, the Forest Service spent 16 percent of its budget on firefighting. Today the 

agency spends more than half of its budget in fire management activities and has seen a corresponding decline in 

non-fire staffing of 39 percent since 1998. Notwithstanding 

these challenges, through collaboration, the Forest Service 

has consistently increased both the number of acres treated annually to improve watershed resilience and timber 

production—increasing timber harvest by 18 percent since 

2008. 

The frequency and intensity of wildfire, the rising cost 

of assets needed to deploy against the spread of wildfire, 

and the way that fire suppression is paid for constrain the 

agency’s capacity to realize additional gains through efficiencies and partnerships alone. The most important action Congress can make now in advancing the pace and 

scale of forest restoration is to fix the fire funding problem. 

The health of the national forests and the communities 

we serve are our shared priority. The Forest Service is accelerating restoration and management of the national forests through innovative approaches and increased collaboration, though it is clear that more work needs to be done, 

and we welcome practical legislation that provides for expedient and responsible efficiencies in the execution of that 

work. USDA defers to the Department of the Interior on 

provisions that most directly affect their agencies. 

This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the original 

bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 

omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015 

* * * * * * * 

[SEC. 206. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

fund or participate in pilot projects to increase Colorado River System water in Lake Mead and the initial units of Colorado River 

Storage Project reservoirs, as authorized by the first section of the 

Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620), to address the effects of historic drought conditions. 

[(b) ADMINISTRATION.—Pilot projects under this section are authorized to be funded through— 

[(1) grants by the Secretary to public entities that use water 

from the Colorado River Basin for municipal purposes for 

projects that are implemented by 1 or more non-Federal entities; or 

[(2) grants or other appropriate financial agreements to provide additional funds for renewing or implementing water conservation agreements that are in existence on the date of enactment of this Act. 

[(c) LIMITATIONS.— 

[(1) Funds in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund established by section 5 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act 

(43 U.S.C. 620d) and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund established by section 403 of the Colorado River 

Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1543) shall not be used to carry 

out this section; and 

[(2) the authority to fund these pilot projects through grants 

shall terminate on September 30, 2018. 

[(d) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.—Not later than September 

30, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 

and the Committees on Appropriations and Energy and Natural 

Resources of the Senate a report evaluating the effectiveness of the 

pilot projects described in subsection (a) and a recommendation to 

Congress whether the activities undertaken by the pilot projects 

should be continued.] 

SEC. 206. COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, as 

soon as practicable after the date of enactment of the Western Water 

Supply and Planning Enhancement Act of 2016, the Secretary of the 

Interior (referred to in this section as the ‘Secretary’) shall fund or 

participate in projects to increase Colorado River System water in 

Lake Mead and the initial units of Colorado River Storage Project 

reservoirs, as authorized by the first section of the Act of April 11, 

1956 (commonly known as the ‘Colorado River Storage Project Act’) 

(43 U.S.C. 620), to address the effects of historic drought conditions. 

(b) ADMINISTRATION.—Projects under this section may be funded 

through— 

(1) grants by the Secretary to public entities that use water 

from the Colorado River Basin for municipal purposes for 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

projects that are implemented by one or more non-Federal entities; or 

(2) grants or other appropriate financial agreements to provide additional funds for renewing or implementing water conservation agreements that are in existence on the date of enactment of the Western Water Supply and Planning Enhancement 

Act of 2016. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Funds in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 

established by section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly 

known as the ‘Colorado River Storage Project Act’) (43 U.S.C. 620d), 

and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund established 

by section 403 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 

1543) shall not be used to carry out this section. 

(d) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.—Not later than September 

30, 2026, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 

and the Committees on Appropriations and Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report evaluating the effectiveness of the 

projects described in subsection (a). 

(e) APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to 

the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out this section $8,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2017 through 2027, to remain available until expended. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS