79–006

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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 PickSloan 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.

5

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 nonIndian 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 PickSloan 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:

Project Completed Appropriations au- thorized 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.

6

Project Completed Appropriations au- thorized Cost share

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. 2Oahe 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

7

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.

8

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 ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 00:25 May 26, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR633.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR633
9

mittee 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

10

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.

(11)

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)

12

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.

(13)

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.

§ 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.

Æ