```

[Senate Report 110-111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 245
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-111

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

 
    CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY

                                _______
                                

                 June 28, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 175]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 175) to provide for a feasibility study 
of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central 
Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the 
District, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 
pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY DISTRICT FEASIBILITY 
                    STUDY.

    (a) Study.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
        through the Commissioner of Reclamation (referred to in this 
        section as the ``Secretary''), shall--
                  (A) conduct a feasibility study of alternatives to 
                augment the water supplies of--
                          (i) the Central Oklahoma Master Conservatory 
                        District (referred to in this section as the 
                        ``District''); and
                          (ii) cities served by the District;
          (2) Inclusions.--The study under paragraph (1) shall include 
        recommendations of the Secretary, if any, relating to the 
        alternatives studied.
    (b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal share of the total costs of the 
        study under subsection (a) shall not exceed 50 percent.
          (2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share 
        required under paragraph (1) may be in the form of any in-kind 
        services that the Secretary determines would contribute 
        substantially toward the conduct and completion of the study.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to conduct the study under subsection (a) 
$900,000.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of S. 175 is to provide for a feasibility study 
of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central 
Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the 
District.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEED

    The Norman Project, authorized in 1960 (Public Law 86-529), 
was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for 
municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, flood control, 
recreation, and fish & wildlife purposes in central Oklahoma. 
Thunderbird Lake, the reservoir created by Norman Dam, provides 
water to the region, including the cities of Norman, Midwest 
City, and Del City. The Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy 
District (District) operates Thunderbird Lake and delivers 
water to these cities via pipelines and pumping plants.
    The population of Central Oklahoma continues to grow, 
resulting in increased demands for M&I water. Along with 
receiving water from Thunderbird Lake, the region relies on 
groundwater from the Garber-Wellington aquifer to help meet 
water demands. As the area population increases, the demand for 
water is expected to grow beyond the combined yield of the 
aquifer and Thunderbird Lake. Beginning in 1988, the city of 
Norman first exceeded its allocation of Thunderbird Lake water, 
and over the past decade has exceeded it for nine consecutive 
years. To help meet needs during water emergencies, Norman 
built a waterline to connect with Oklahoma City's treated water 
supply in 1999. However, the high cost of operating this 
waterline necessitates that it be used for emergency purposes 
only. To meet future demand, the region began looking at other 
potential solutions.
    In 2005, Reclamation, in cooperation with the District, 
completed an appraisal report on alternative measures to 
augment water supplies at Lake Thunderbird. The report 
concluded that a M&I water need exists and that there are a 
range of alternatives to meet that need. A feasibility study is 
needed to fully evaluate all the alternatives.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 175 was introduced by Senator Inhofe on January 4, 2007, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
The Water and Power Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 175 on 
April 25, 2007. At the business meeting on May 23, 2007, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 175 
favorably reported, with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 
open business meeting on May 23, 2007, by voice vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 175, if 
amended as described herein.

                          COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

    During the consideration of S. 175, the Committee adopted 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute which addresses 
concerns raised during the committee hearing and in written 
submissions.
    The first change deletes all findings from section 1(a) of 
the bill as introduced. The second change provides for a 3-year 
period to conduct the study. The third change incorporates a 
cost-share provision into the bill. The fourth and final change 
increases the authorization of appropriations from $300,000 to 
$900,000.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1(a) directs the Secretary, acting through the 
Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study to 
augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master 
Conservancy District and provide recommendations as 
appropriate.
    Section 1(b) requires that the Federal share of the costs 
of the feasibility study not exceed 50% of the total costs and 
authorizes the non-Federal share to be in the form of in-kind 
services.
    Section 1(c) authorizes $900,000 to be appropriated for the 
Secretary to conduct the feasibility study.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following estimate of the costs of this measure has 
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                      May 29, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 175, a bill to 
provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the 
water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy 
District and cities served by the district.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tyler 
Kruzich.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure.

S. 175--A bill to provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to 
        augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master 
        Conservancy District and cities served by the district

    S. 175 would require the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a 
feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies 
of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and the 
cities that it serves. Assuming appropriation of the amount 
authorized by the bill, CBO estimates that implementing S. 175 
would cost $900,000 over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting the 
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    S. 175 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; any 
costs incurred by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservation 
District would result from complying with conditions of federal 
assistance.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Tyler Kruzich. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 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. 175. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant responsibilities on private individuals and 
business.
    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. 175.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior at 
the Subcommittee hearing on S. 175 follows:

Statement of Robert Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 
                       Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert 
Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am 
pleased to present the views of the Department of the Interior 
on S. 175 concerning the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy 
District (District) Feasibility Study.
    S. 175 would authorize Reclamation to conduct a Feasibility 
Study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the 
District and cities served by the District. S. 175 would also 
require the study to be conducted within one year of the date 
of enactment, and authorize $300,000 to be spent in conducting 
the study. The Department does not support S. 175.
    The one-year timeframe for the study described in S. 175 is 
insufficient for a thorough evaluation of alternatives to meet 
future water needs of surrounding communities not presently 
served by the District and would be a very aggressive schedule. 
This timeframe would also make completion of the Feasibility 
Study, including preparation of the appropriate National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document, extremely 
problematic and may prove difficult to achieve with any degree 
of accuracy.
    The Department recognizes that a water need exists for the 
District. Reclamation is currently preparing a scope of work in 
coordination with the District, which focuses the plan of study 
to be completed. However, the Department does not support 
authorization of a Feasibility Study at this time.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 175. This 
concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 175, as ordered 
reported.

                                  

```