[House Report 112-527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-527
======================================================================
EAST BENCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER CONTRACT EXTENSION ACT
_______
June 15, 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
[To accompany S. 997]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (S. 997) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
extend a water contract between the United States and the East
Bench Irrigation District, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 997 is to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to extend a water contract between the United States
and the East Bench Irrigation District.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Congress established what is now the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) in 1902 to build water infrastructure throughout
the West. To this day, Reclamation's water projects, including
over 600 dams and reservoirs, play a significant role in
providing a reliable source of water and power for irrigated
agriculture and rural and urban communities across the 17
western states.
One of these projects is the Clark Canyon Dam and
Reservoir, located in southwestern Montana. This federal
project annually supplies irrigation water for 28,000 acres
within the East Bench Irrigation District (EBID). These water
deliveries are pursuant to a contract between the federal
government and the EBID. This contract was executed in 1958 and
expired on December 31, 2005. Subsequent federal appropriations
acts have extended the 1958 contract for two year durations.
Since Reclamation cannot extend the contract administratively,
S. 997 extends the 1958 contract until December 31, 2013.
Such Congressional contract extensions are not common, but
have occurred when specific federal and state statutes and
actions delay administrative contract renewals. In this case,
Montana Code Section 85-7-1957 requires Montana's District
Court to issue a decree before any new contract execution can
take place.
In 2006, the EBID filed a petition with the Montana court
to confirm the execution of a new contract between EBID and
Reclamation. A third party filed an objection to the new
contract, complaining that it allowed for irrigation on more
acres than was originally planned for and that the party's
water rights may be at risk if the new contract is confirmed.
The Montana court has yet to set a trial date to resolve the
litigation. Since Montana state law requires a state district
court judge to ``confirm'' these types of contracts and because
confirmation has been delayed due to the legal challenge, the
interim 2006 contract is not officially binding on Reclamation.
For these reasons, S. 997 provides EBID water certainty
through an extension of the 1958 contract until December 31,
2013, or when the Montana court allows for new long-term
contract execution. The legislation does not prejudice the
state court's deliberations.
COMMITTEE ACTION
S. 997 was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Jon
Tester (D-MT). On November 2, 2011, the bill passed the Senate
by unanimous consent. The bill was then referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. On June 6, 2012, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 7, 2012, the
Full Resources Committee met to consider S. 997. The
Subcommittee on Water and Power was discharged by unanimous
consent. No amendments were offered to the bill and the bill
was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
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:
S. 997--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a
water contract between the United States and the East Bench
Irrigation District
S. 997 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to extend the water
contract between the United States and the East Bench
Irrigation District for four years or until a new long-term
contract is executed, whichever is earlier. Based on
information from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO estimates that
enacting the legislation would have no impact on the federal
budget. Enacting S. 997 would not affect revenues or direct
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
The Bureau of Reclamation supplies irrigation water from
the Clark Canyon Dam and Reservoir project to the East Bench
Irrigation District under an interim contract negotiated in
2006 after the original contract expired. When confirmed by a
Montana district court, the 2006 contract will become the long-
term contract. Payments to the federal government under the
2006 contract are about $115,000 annually, including
reimbursement for operations and maintenance costs. Enacting S.
997 would not affect those annual payments.
S. 997 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On August 3, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
997, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
extend a water contract between the United States and the East
Bench Irrigation District, as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on July 14, 2011. The
two pieces of legislation and CBO's cost estimates are the
same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Aurora Swanson
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
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 from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO estimates that
enacting the legislation would have no impact on the federal
budget. Enacting S. 997 would not affect revenues or direct
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
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 authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to extend a water contract between the United States
and the East Bench Irrigation District.
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.