59–010 

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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
3 

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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
4 

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. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
5 

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. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT