```

[House Report 106-633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-633

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

 
             LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

  May 23, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 297]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 297) to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and 
Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for 
the planning and construction of the water supply system, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

              TITLE I--LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark Rural Water System 
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title:
          (1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' means 
        the study entitled ``Feasibility Level Evaluation of a Missouri 
        River Regional Water Supply for South Dakota, Iowa and 
        Minnesota'', dated September 1993, that includes a water 
        conservation plan, environmental report, and environmental 
        enhancement component.
          (2) Incremental cost.--The term ``incremental cost'' means 
        the cost of the savings to the project were the city of Sioux 
        Falls not to participate in the water supply system.
          (3) Member entity.--The term ``member entity'' means a rural 
        water system or municipality that meets the requirements for 
        membership as defined by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water 
        System, Inc. bylaws, dated September 6, 1990.
          (4) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
        construction budget'' means the description of the total amount 
        of funds needed for the construction of the water supply 
        project, as contained in the feasibility study.
          (5) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
        term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' means 
        all power requirements that are necessary for the operation of 
        intake facilities, pumping stations, water treatment 
        facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines up to the point of 
        delivery of water by the water supply system to each member 
        entity that distributes water at retail to individual users.
          (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (7) Water supply project.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``water supply project'' 
                means the physical components of the Lewis and Clark 
                Rural Water Project.
                  (B) Inclusions.--The term ``water supply project'' 
                includes--
                          (i) necessary pumping, treatment, and 
                        distribution facilities;
                          (ii) pipelines;
                          (iii) appurtenant buildings and property 
                        rights;
                          (iv) electrical power transmission and 
                        distribution facilities necessary for services 
                        to water systems facilities; and
                          (v) such other pipelines, pumping plants, and 
                        facilities as the Secretary considers necessary 
                        and appropriate to meet the water supply, 
                        economic, public health, and environment needs 
                        of the member entities (including water storage 
                        tanks, water lines, and other facilities for 
                        the member entities).
          (8) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
        means the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit 
        corporation established and operated substantially in 
        accordance with the feasibility study.

SEC. 103. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the water supply 
system for the planning and construction of the water supply project.
  (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide for the 
member entities safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial 
water supplies, mitigation of wetland areas, and water conservation 
in--
          (1) Lake County, McCook County, Minnehaha County, Turner 
        County, Lincoln County, Clay County, and Union County, in 
        southeastern South Dakota;
          (2) Rock County and Nobles County, in southwestern Minnesota; 
        and
          (3) Lyon County, Sioux County, Osceola County, O'Brien 
        County, Dickinson County, and Clay County, in northwestern 
        Iowa.
  (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under subsection (a) to 
the water supply system shall not exceed the amount of funds authorized 
under section 108.
  (d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The Secretary 
shall not obligate funds for the construction of the water supply 
project until--
          (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
        of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met; and
          (2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water 
        conservation program are prepared and submitted to the Congress 
        not less than 90 days before the commencement of construction 
        of the water supply project.

SEC. 104. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

  Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result of the 
construction and operation of the water supply project shall be on an 
acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological equivalency, concurrent with 
project construction, as provided in the feasibility study.

SEC. 105. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

  (a) In General.--From power designated for future irrigation and 
drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, the Western 
Area Power Administration shall make available, at the firm power rate, 
the capacity and energy required to meet the pumping and incidental 
operational requirements of the water supply project during the period 
beginning on May 1 and ending on October 31 of each year.
  (b) Qualification To Use Pick-Sloan Power.--For operation during the 
period beginning May 1 and ending October 31 of each year, for as long 
as the water supply system operates on a not-for-profit basis, the 
portions of the water supply project constructed with assistance under 
this title shall be eligible to receive firm power from the Pick-Sloan 
Missouri Basin program established by section 9 of the Act of December 
22, 1944 (chapter 665; 58 Stat. 887), popularly known as the Flood 
Control Act of 1944.

SEC. 106. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

  This title does not limit the authorization for water projects in the 
States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota under law in effect on or 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 107. WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this title--
          (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an interstate 
        compact governing water;
          (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated share 
        of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, whether 
        determined by past or future interstate compacts or by past or 
        future legislative or final judicial allocations;
          (3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
        interstate compact, governing water quality or disposal; or
          (4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to exercise 
        any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to any ground 
        water resource.

SEC. 108. COST SHARING.

  (a) Federal Cost Share.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        Secretary shall provide funds equal to 80 percent of--
                  (A) the amount allocated in the total project 
                construction budget for planning and construction of 
                the water supply project under section 103; and
                  (B) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases 
                in development costs reflected in appropriate 
                engineering cost indices after September 1, 1993.
          (2) Sioux falls.--The Secretary shall provide funds for the 
        city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in an amount equal to 50 
        percent of the incremental cost to the city of participation in 
        the project.
  (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        non-Federal share of the costs allocated to the water supply 
        system shall be 20 percent of the amounts described in 
        subsection (a)(1).
          (2) Sioux falls.--The non-Federal cost-share for the city of 
        Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be 50 percent of the 
        incremental cost to the city of participation in the project.

SEC. 109. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.

  (a) Authorization.--At the request of the water supply system, the 
Secretary may allow the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide project 
construction oversight to the water supply project for the service area 
of the water supply system described in section 103(b).
  (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds used by 
the Commissioner of Reclamation for oversight described in subsection 
(a) shall not exceed the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the 
amount provided in the total project construction budget for the entire 
project construction period.

SEC. 110. PROJECT OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY.

  The water supply system shall retain title to all project facilities 
during and after construction, and shall be responsible for all 
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs of the 
project.

SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title 
$213,887,700, to remain available until expended.
  Amend the title so as to read:

    A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and 
Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for 
the planning and construction of the water supply system.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 297 is to authorize the construction of 
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and to authorize 
assistance to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a 
nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of the 
water supply system, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is designed to 
provide replacement or supplemental water supplies from the 
Missouri River to areas in southeastern South Dakota, 
northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota serving about 
180,000 people, of which approximately 150,000 reside in the 
Sioux Falls metropolitan area. The estimated cost of the 
project is $283 million in 1993 dollars, with a 10% State share 
and 10% local cost share based on a willingness to pay 
analysis. Sioux Falls will pay 50% of the incremental cost to 
its participation in the project. The water would be diverted 
from the Missouri river near Vermillion, South Dakota, treated 
and distributed through approximately 400 miles of piping with 
a series of storage reservoirs and pumping stations.
    One of the reasons why many South Dakotans have proposed 
this $283 million project dates back to the development of the 
Pick-Sloan Program, and the loss of South Dakota farm land for 
downstream flood protection. South Dakota lost approximately 
520,000 acres of land to flooding while downstream states have 
received protection for approximately 552,000 acres of land. In 
addition to downstream states benefitting from flood 
protection, South Dakota has been a recipient of flood 
protection from the Pick-Sloan program. This aspect of the 
Pick-Sloan program is referenced as an important part of their 
flood protection in the following manner on the State of South 
Dakota homepage (http://www.state.sd.us/deca/cultural/
soc__hist.htm):

          1952--A major flood on the Missouri River proves the 
        wisdom of the Pick-Sloan Act. Flood damage is severe in 
        Pierre, with much of the town inundated. The flood 
        causes damage all through South Dakota and in 
        downstream states. The severity of the flood provided 
        additional justification for construction of the Oahe 
        Dam.

    In addition to the flood protection benefits South Dakota 
has realized with the Pick-Sloan system, they have also 
received several other benefits including, low-cost federal 
power, recreation, fish and wildlife benefits and some 
municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) and irrigation 
benefits.

          In all, Congress has authorized $1.8 billion in Pick-
        Sloan water projects, with approximately $500 million 
        for MR&I projects in South Dakota over the last 25 
        years.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation concerns

    Although the Bureau of Reclamation participated in the 
planning and willingness to pay analyses and agreed with the 
need for a project to meet both supply and water quality needs, 
the Administration has opposed the legislation since the 103rd 
Congress due to the cost share, overall cost, the inclusion of 
Sioux Falls within the project, and the addition of two non-
reclamation states for Bureau of Reclamation funding. At a 
Senate hearing on the Lewis and Clark Project, on May 27, 1999, 
then Assistant Secretary for Water and Science for the 
Department of Interior, Patricia Beneke, stated that:

          The Department's long-standing policy relative to 
        non-Indian municipal and rural water system development 
        is that non-Federal interests should repay 100 percent 
        of allocated project construction costs at current 
        interest rates, and that they pay 100 percent of 
        operation and maintenance costs. In addition, urban 
        areas like Sioux Falls should have a sufficient 
        population base and economic resources to finance its 
        own water system.

South Dakota water projects

    In 1963 the Department of Interior submitted the Report on 
Financial Position, Missouri River Basin Project. The Report 
presented a financial plan to ensure the financial integrity of 
the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Project (P-SMBP) and reaffirmed 
the Ultimate Development Plan concept--i.e. that storage and 
pumping power facilities were built largely for the ultimate 
benefit of the irrigation projects, including those not yet 
built, but planned to be built at some later time. The report 
also recommended the reduction of the planned irrigation 
development by 1.3 million acres. In 1964 Congress adopted 
Public Law 88-442 (the Missouri River Basin Appropriation Act) 
which implemented the report's recommendations and also 
required that any individual P-SMBP projects that were not 
under construction as of June 30, 1964, be reauthorized before 
federal funds could be appropriated for project construction. 
Since adoption of Public Law 88-442, nine projects have been 
reauthorized, including three in South Dakota. The reauthorized 
projects in South Dakota are: 1. The Pollack-Herried Unit; 2. 
The Lake Andes-Wagner Unit; and 3. The Oahe Unit.
    To date, 92 of the originally envisioned irrigation 
projects and facilities remain undeveloped. Of these, 16 
projects are in South Dakota.
    South Dakota reclamation projects authorized and built 
since 1944:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Appropriations
              Project                         Completed              authorized              Cost share
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keyhole...........................  1952........................             (\1\)  Repayment contract.
Rapid Valley (Pactola)............  1956........................             (\1\)  Repayment contract.
Rapid Valley (Deerfield)..........  1947........................             (\1\)  Repayment contract.
Angostura.........................  1949........................             (\1\)  Repayment contract.
Shadehill.........................  1950........................             (\1\)  Repayment contract.
Oahe..............................  (\2\).......................  ................  ............................
WEB...............................  1991........................       $88,000,000  75% grant.
                                                                                    25% loan.
Mid Dakota (34% complete).........  Ongoing.....................       137,000,000  85% grant.
                                                                                    15% loan.
Mni Wiconi........................  Ongoing.....................       314,070,000  80% grant.
                                                                                    20% loan.
                                                                 ------------------
      Total.......................  ............................    $1,839,070,000  ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authorized as part of Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program--not authorized individually--estimated total in
  excess of $1.3 billion as of 1994.
\2\Oahe Dam completed, Oahe irrigation was started, not finished, and is not anticipated to be finished.

    In addition to the benefits that South Dakota has received 
under the Pick-Sloan Program, the federal government made 
payments to South Dakota residents at the time their lands were 
inundated by the Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The issue, however, has 
been revisited. Currently, there are financial compensation 
bills pending before Congress for South Dakota residents that 
lost land because of the construction of Pick-Sloan reservoirs.
    Many of the inundated Pick-Sloan Project lands were tribal 
lands, thus several bills have been considered, and passed, 
regarding tribal compensation for these lands. On November 8, 
1999, the Senate passed S. 964 which provides an additional 
$290 million as compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
(CRST) of South Dakota for the acquisition by the United States 
of 104,492 acres of land of the Tribe for the Oahe Dam and 
Reservoir on the Missouri River. The CRST lands represent about 
20% of the lands inundated for Pick-Sloan projects. The 
following is an excerpt from Senate Report 106-217.

          It was not until 1954 that the Congress enacted 
        legislation to provide compensation to the Tribe in 
        exchange for the acquisition of the Tribe's lands. In 
        settlement negotiations prior to enactment of this 
        legislation, the CRST requested some $23.5 million as a 
        compensation for lands taken and rehabilitation of 
        tribal standards of living. However, the legislation 
        authorized the payment of only $10.6 million for 
        damages, rehabilitation and administrative expenses 
        related to the settlement, less than half of what the 
        Tribe requested and documented. As a rough indicator of 
        under-compensation to the Tribe, non-Indians received 
        an average of $49.22 per acre for their agricultural 
        lands, while the Tribe received only $21.49 per acre.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 297 was introduced on January 6, 1999, by Congressman 
John Thune (R-SD). H.R. 297 was referred to the Committee on 
Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water 
and Power. On May 17, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged from further 
consideration of the measure by unanimous consent. Congressman 
John Doolittle (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the markup which included the following 
changes:
          1. An assurance that the water supply system will 
        retain title to all project facilities during and after 
        construction, and shall be responsible for all 
        operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation 
        costs of the project.
          2. A reduction of the federal authorization by 
        $10,100,000 by eliminating the environmental 
        enhancement component of the project.
          3. Language that permits the water supply system, as 
        long as it operates on a not-for-profit basis, to be 
        eligible to receive firm power from the Pick-Sloan 
        Missouri Basin Program.
          4. An amendment to the title to read: ``A bill to 
        authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark Rural 
        Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis 
        and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit 
        corporation, for the planning and construction of the 
        water supply system.''.
    The Doolittle amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill 
was then ordered reported, as amended, by voice vote to the 
House of Representatives.

            SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS REPORTED

Section 101. Short title

    The short title of the bill is ``The Lewis and Clark Rural 
Water System Act of 2000''.

Section 102. Definitions

    This Section provides definitions of terms used in the bill 
including: ``Project Construction Budget'', ``Pumping and 
Incidental Operational Requirements'', ``Water Supply Project'' 
and others.

Section 103. Federal assistance for the water supply system

    This Section requires the Secretary of Interior to make 
grants to the water supply system for the planning and 
construction of the project and designates the counties to be 
included in the system. It further limits the use of funds 
until the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) are met and a final engineering report and plan are 
submitted to Congress.

Section 104. Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses

    This Section sets forth the criteria for mitigation fish 
and wildlife losses.

Section 105. Use of Pick-Sloan power

    This Section sets forth the requirements for the Western 
Area Power Administration regarding the delivery of capacity 
and energy for the system. The Committee expects that the 
capacity and energy marketed by the Western Area Power 
Administration to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will 
be delivered through a preference power entity.

Section 106. No limitation on water project in states

    This Section clarifies intent with regard to authorization 
of water projects in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota.

Section 107. Water rights

    This Section clarifies that nothing in this Title is 
intended to affect existing water rights.

Section 108. Cost sharing

    This Section sets forth the cost sharing requirements for 
the states and for the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Section 109. Bureau of Reclamation

    This Section provides for the involvement of the Bureau of 
Reclamation in project construction oversight.

Section 110. Project ownership and responsibility

    This Section makes clear that the water supply system is to 
retain title to all project facilities during and after 
construction and shall be responsible for all operation, 
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation costs of the project.
    The Committee does not intend for Section 110 of this bill 
to prohibit the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System (LCRWS) from 
qualifying for other forms of federal financial or technical 
assistance for which LCRWS would otherwise qualify, as LCRWS 
may pursue such assistance in carrying out its responsibilities 
once a given portion of the system is completed.

Section 111. Authorization of appropriations

    This Section authorizes appropriations of $213,887,700.

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

                   constitutional authority statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    compliance with house rule xiii

    1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act.--As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings.--Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 19, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 297, Lewis and 
Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel 
Applebaum.
            Sincerely,
                                           Steven Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 297--Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000

    Summary: H.R. 297 would authorize the appropriation of $214 
million to the Department of the Interior (DOI) to make grants 
to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System for the construction 
of a drinking water supply project. The Lewis and Clark Rural 
Water System is a group of cities and rural areas in 
southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern 
Minnesota. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 297 would cost $60 million 
over the 2001-2005 period with the rest of the authorized 
spending coming after 2005.
    Enactment of H.R. 297 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
State and local governments might incur some costs as a result 
of the bill's enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 297 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization level................................................      214        0        0        0        0
Estimated outlays..................................................        1        2        9       24       24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the full amount of the authorization will be 
provided in fiscal year 2001. Our estimate of the amounts 
needed over the 2001-2005 period to begin construction of this 
drinking water system is based on information from the local 
water system and historical spending rates for similar 
projects. Completion of this project is expected to take about 
12 years.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 297 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The bill would require that the nonfederal share of 
project costs 20 percent, except for the incremental cost of 
participation in the project by the city of Sioux Falls. The 
city would be required to pay 50 percent of that cost. Any 
state or local governments choosing to participate in the 
project authorized by this bill would do so on a voluntary 
basis, and any costs that they might incur would be accepted by 
them on that basis.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains 
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On August 2, 1999, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 233, the Lewis and Clark Rural Water 
System Act of 1999, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources on July 28, 1999. S. 244 is 
very similar to H.R. 297; however, the Senate bill would 
authorize the appropriation of $224 million, which is $10 
million more than the amount in the House bill.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Rachel Applebaum; 
Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie 
Miller; Impact on the private sector: Natalie Tawil.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                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.

                                APPENDIX

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                      Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Tom: Thank you for your letter regarding your 
Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 297, the Lewis and 
Clark Rural Water System Act.
    I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdiction over certain 
sections of this legislation and appreciate your cooperation in 
moving the bill to the House floor expeditiously. I agree that 
your decision to forego further action on the bill will not 
prejudice the Commerce Committee with respect to its 
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, and 
will support your request for conferees on those provisions 
within the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction should they be 
the subject of a House-Senate conference. I will also include a 
copy of your letter and this response in the Congressional 
Record when the legislation is considered by the House.
    Thank you again for your cooperation.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Don: I am writing with regard to H.R. 297, the Lewis 
and Clark Rural Water System Act. As you know, rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives grant the Committee on 
Commerce jurisdiction over the generation and marketing of 
power, as well as public health and quarantine. Accordingly, 
legislation setting rates for electric power, as well as 
legislation amending or implementing the Safe Drinking Water 
Act fall within the Committee's jurisdiction.
    Section 7 of H.R. 297 directs the Western Area Power 
Administration to make certain electric capacity available to 
the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, and establishes a rate 
schedule by which such power is to be made available. Further, 
section 3 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide grants for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, 
which falls within the definition of a ``public water system'' 
as defined by section 1401(a)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, and is subject to regulation under such Act. Finally, 
section 5(b) of the legislation requires the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System to establish ``low consumption performance 
standards for all newly installed plumbing fixtures.'' Such 
fixtures are already regulated by the Environmental Protection 
Agency pursuant to authority granted by 1455 of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and part B of title III of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act.
    Because of the importance of this legislation, I recognize 
your desire to bring it before the House in an expeditious 
manner, and I will not exercise the Committee's right to a 
sequential referral. By agreeing to waive its consideration of 
the bill, however, the Committee on Commerce does not waive its 
jurisdiction over H.R. 297. In addition, the Commerce Committee 
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of 
the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I 
ask for your commitment to support any request by the Commerce 
Committee for conferees on H.R. 297 or similar legislation.
    I request that you include this letter and your response in 
your committee report on the bill and as part of the Record 
during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
    Thank you for your attention to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                              Tom Bliley, Chairman.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    Contracts of all Federal government agencies contain 
specific labor standards. These standards are requirements of 
law and their fundamental purpose is to set forth minimum 
working standards on all Federal government construction work.
    It is expected that the Bureau of Reclamation's performance 
requirements and any agreements made with the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water Systems, Inc., for payment of the Federal share of 
project costs will provide for full compliance with all 
applicable laws and regulations, including the Davis-Bacon Act 
(40 U.S.C. Sec. 276a), which requires weekly payment of 
laborers and mechanics at not less than the wage rates and 
fringe benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor to be 
prevailing in the area.
    By requiring that workers on federal construction projects 
such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System are paid wages 
and provided benefits that are up to community standards, 
Davis-Bacon protects working families by ensuring payment of 
decent wages and providing for health insurance coverage.
    It is my understanding that the procedures and rules of the 
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation 
governing the funding and construction of Federal projects such 
as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System will ensure that the 
provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act are applied and rigorously 
enforced.

                                                     George Miller.

                                  

```