19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–657 

NORTH TEXAS ZEBRA MUSSEL BARRIER ACT OF 2012 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6007] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 6007) to exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 6007 is to exempt from the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by the North Texas 

Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In 1900, Congress enacted legislation to support the efforts of 

states to protect their resident game and birds. It was designed to 

prevent hunters from killing game in one state and escaping prosecution by moving the fish or wildlife across state lines. It accomplished that goal by criminalizing both the delivery for shipment 

and the shipment of parts or bodies of ‘‘wild animals or birds’’ 

killed in violation of a state law. In addition, the law tried to preVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Sep 13, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR657.XXX HR657

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

vent the ‘‘unwise’’ introduction of foreign birds and animals by creating an ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ category. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) implements the injurious wildlife provisions through regulations contained in 50 CFR 

part 16. Under these provisions, injurious wildlife are amphibians, 

birds, crustaceans, fish, mammals, mollusks, reptiles and their offspring or gametes that are injurious to the interests of human 

beings, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources of the United States. Plants and organisms other than 

those listed above cannot be listed as injurious wildlife. Once listed 

as injurious, species may not be imported into the United States 

or transported between the states, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, or any territory or possession of the United States by any 

means without a special permit issued by the Service. An individual may obtain a permit for the importation or interstate transportation of live specimens of injurious wildlife for bona fide scientific, educational, medical, or zoological purposes. The penalty for 

an injurious wildlife Lacey Act violation is up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for an individual or a $10,000 fine for an organization. There are 236 species listed as ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ including the brown tree snake, snakehead fish, and zebra mussels. 

Zebra mussels are native to Eastern Europe and Western Asia 

and can grow to a maximum length of about two inches and live 

four to five years. Until the mid-1980’s, there were no zebra mussels in North America. They were first discovered in the United 

States in Lake St. Clair near Detroit in 1988. By 1990, zebra mussels had been found in all five Great Lakes. It appears zebra mussels entered the Great Lakes when ships arriving from Europe discharged their ballast water. The species rapidly dispersed by attaching themselves to boats navigating these waters. In addition, 

this invasive species has the ability to stay alive out of water for 

several days under moist and reasonably cool conditions. They have 

continued to spread through the Great Lakes basin, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and much of the Mississippi River drainage system. 

They are now found in thirty U.S. states. Zebra mussels were listed 

on December 9, 1991 by the Service as ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ under 

the Lacey Act. 

Construction of the Lake Texoma reservoir project was completed 

in 1944 and the lake is located in both Oklahoma and Texas. The 

reservoir project provides a vital water supply for over 1.6 million 

people. It was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 and it 

cost $54 million to construct. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers 

granted an easement and permit to the North Texas Municipal 

Water District (NTMWD) to construct and operate an intake/pumping station at Lake Texoma. The pump station was designed to 

transfer up to 125 million gallons per day of water from Lake 

Texoma directly to Lake Lavon via a pipeline that discharges into 

a tributary of Lake Lavon. The massive intake structure cost over 

$100 million to construct. 

In 1999, after eight years of deliberations, the State Legislatures 

of Oklahoma and Texas adopted legislation readjusting the boundaries of the Red River. It was signed into law by the Governors of 

the two States and the Red River Boundary Compact was approved 

by the United States Congress. It became law on August 21, 2000. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

As a result, a portion of the North Texas Municipal Water District 

intake facility is now located in the State of Oklahoma. 

Since 2009, zebra mussels have been identified as being in Lake 

Texoma. This has raised concerns that this invasive species could 

be transferred across state lines from the Red River Basin to the 

Trinity River Basin in Texas. Lake Texoma comprises 28 percent 

of the total water supply needs for North Texas residents or 

enough water for 500,000 people. This is an area that is experiencing rapid population growth and Lake Texoma supplies are critical during frequent droughts or high demand conditions. 

In December 2010, the Service advised the NTMWD that because 

of the revised boundary delineation, the use of the pump station 

would constitute an interstate transfer of water and a violation of 

the Lacey Act because invasive zebra mussels would be transported 

across state lines. While there is debate about whether the boundary of the intake facility should have been changed, there appears 

to be little flexibility within the Lacey Act to address this issue. 

After voluntarily suspending operation of its Lake Texoma pump 

station, NTMWD has been unable to use the water supplies of 

Lake Texoma for the past three years. In addition, the Corps of Engineers has indicated that it is unable to issue a new grant pumping permit until the zebra mussel issue is addressed. The severe 

drought of 2011 made this loss of water supply a near catastrophe. 

As a result, NTMWD has committed to construct a 46-mile closed 

pipeline in the State of Texas to transfer all Lake Texoma water 

directly to their water treatment facility at a cost of over $300 million which will be paid for entirely by water users. This project was 

issued a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit by the Army Corps 

of Engineers on May 3, 2012. However, the Service has indicated 

they lack the statutory authority to tell the Water District that this 

pipeline will comply with the Lacey Act. The Water District is, 

therefore, faced with four options. These include moving the intake 

structure at a cost of $100 million; convince the two state legislatures to readjust the boundaries, agree to permanently forgo using 

the water resources of Lake Texoma or enact a legislative solution. 

The North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act will solve the problem facing North Texas residents by recognizing that the Lacey Act 

does not apply to the Lake Texoma water transfers which would 

occur in a closed conveyance system where the water would be 

transported to a treatment facility where the zebra mussels will be 

completely destroyed. Without this legislation, more than one million people will face the real prospect that their water supply will 

be severely curtailed or unavailable in the future. 

The Committee on Natural Resources recognizes the unique circumstances confronting the North Texas Municipal Water District. 

The Committee is not aware of any similar situation facing any 

other Municipal Water District in the United States and by moving 

forward with this legislative solution, the Committee does not intend for this to serve as a precedent for exempting activities from 

the Lacey Act in the future. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 6007 was introduced on June 21, 2012, by Congressman 

Ralph M. Hall (R–TX). The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. 

On July 19, 2012, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, 

and Insular Affairs held a hearing on the bill. On August 1, 2012, 

the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs was 

discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered, 

and the bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by unanimous consent. 

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 

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

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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: 

H.R. 6007—North Texas Zebra Mussel Barrier Act of 2012 

H.R. 6007 would exempt the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) from prosecution under certain provisions of the 

Lacey Act for the transfer of water containing zebra mussels from 

Oklahoma to Texas. The Lacey Act protects plants and wildlife by 

creating civil and criminal penalties for various violations, including transferring injurious species across state borders. Because 

zebra mussels are listed as injurious species under that act, under 

current law, transporting water containing zebra mussels would 

violate those provisions. 

Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), CBO estimates that implementing the legislation 

would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Under current law, federal agencies, including the USFWS and the Department of Justice, have the authority to negotiate agreements that 

would allow the NTMWD to transfer the affected waters without 

being prosecuted. Enacting H.R. 6007 could reduce revenues from 

penalties under the Lacey Act; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply. However, CBO estimates that any such reductions would be 

negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending. 

H.R. 6007 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFaye. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

2. Section 308(a) of 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. Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(6) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

H.R. 6007 exempts the North Texas Municipal Water District 

and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority from prosecution under 

the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. The exemption applies only 

when these entities transport water that contains zebra mussels— 

a species designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service as ‘‘injurious’’ 

and therefore illegal to transport across state lines—in closed conveyance systems until all zebra mussels have been destroyed. 

The aforementioned entities provide water to one of the most 

rapidly urbanizing areas of the country. During the 1980’s they 

consulted with the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a water 

intake structure on the Texas side of Lake Texoma, a man-made 

lake that straddles the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Since 

that time, two critical events occurred; first, zebra mussels were 

discovered in Lake Texoma, and second, an agreement shifted the 

Texas-Oklahoma boundary line such that the water intake structure now lies in Oklahoma. It would take an Act of Congress and 

two state legislatures to revise the boundary. Because of this unforeseen boundary shift, previously legal withdrawals from Lake 

Texoma will now violate the Lacey Act. H.R. 6007 intends to remediate the problem. 

The North Texas Municipal Water District has secured a $295 

million bond to build an underground pipeline from Lake Texoma 

to a water treatment facility at the edge of Lake Lavon, a reservoir 

in Texas that does not currently contain zebra mussels. All zebra 

mussels will be destroyed before water enters Lake Lavon using 

technology that has been proven effective for this purpose. The 

project will be financed entirely by ratepayers, who will incur a 

20% increase in rates. 

A primary purpose of the Lacey Act is to curb the spread of undesirable species. We believe that H.R. 6007 is in keeping with the 

intention of the Lacey Act, since all water must be kept in closed 

systems until all zebra mussels, including eggs and larvae, have 

been removed. However, we emphasize that H.R. 6007 is necessary 

to remedy a unique and difficult situation, and came about only 

after all other plausible options had already been pursued. It 

should not set a precedent for making exemptions to the Lacey Act. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS