79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–856

RECLAMATION REFORM REFUND ACT OF 2000

SEPTEMBER 18, 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

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 4847]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 4847) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to refund certain

amounts received by the United States pursuant to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 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. 4847 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior

to refund certain amounts received by the United States pursuant

to the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), direct and indirect landowners and lessees (landholders) are required to file

RRA forms prior to receiving irrigation water. Such forms are submitted to districts who control the actual delivery of irrigation

water. The Bureau of Reclamation has wrestled with the question

of whether it should curtail the delivery of irrigation water to landholders who do not have forms on file. To address the problem, the

Bureau of Reclamation in 1988 billed districts the full-cost rate for

any of their landholders who were required to submit RRA forms,

but did not file the form, and still received water for the period of

the violation. Some districts, but not all, paid their bills.

As a result of the Bureau’s review of the issue and a rule making

action, in March 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation began to impose

an administrative fee to address violations of the RRA form reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 04:24 Sep 19, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR856.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR856
2

quirements. In the case Orange Cove Irrigation District v. The

United States, the judge ruled that ‘‘it is clear from the legislative

history of the R.A. (Reclamation Act) that Congress did not intend

for the Bureau to assess monetary penalties or fines for failure to

submit the required forms.’’ After further review, the Bureau revised its position and attempted to refund part of the monies paid,

but was advised that it did not have the legal authority to do so.

This legislation directs and authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation

to refund the fines the Bureau received, subject to the requirements in Section 2, (a) and the exception in (2)(b) of the bill.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4847 was introduced on July 13, 2000, by Congressman Cal

Dooley (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water

and Power. On July 26, 2000, the Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water and Power was discharged from further consideration of the measure by unanimous

consent. No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous

consent.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

The short title of the bill is the ‘‘Reclamation Reform Refund Act

of 2000’’.

Section 2. Refund of certain amounts received under Reclamation

Reform Act of 1982

As described above, this section authorizes appropriations of up

to $3 million to be made available for refunds, and directs the Secretary of the Interior to make these funds pursuant to certain requirements.

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.

3

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, August 18, 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. 4847, the Reclamation

Reform Refund Act of 2000.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Cash Driskill.

Sincerely,

ARLENE HOLEN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 4847—Reclamation Reform Refund Act of 2000

H.R. 4847 would authorize the appropriation of $3 million to refund certain payments made by water districts to the Bureau of

Reclamation (bureau) before January 1, 1994. Until that time, the

bureau charged the full cost of providing irrigation water, rather

than a reduced rate, to those water districts whose customers failed

to file the appropriate forms. Currently, the bureau assesses a $260

fee for failure to file such forms.

This bill would authorize and direct the bureau to refund the difference between the full cost rate and the reduced rate for providing irrigation water, less a $260 fee, to certain districts with

customers who did not complete the bureau’s required paperwork

prior to January 1, 1994. Based on information from the bureau,

CBO estimates that about 80 districts would be owed a total of

about $650,000 under the refund formula specified in the bill.

Hence, although the bill would authorize the appropriation of $3

million, we estimate that implementing the bill would cost about

$1 million in 2001.

H.R. 4847 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 and would benefit some water districts.

4

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lisa Cash Driskill.

The estimate was 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.

Æ