[House Report 106-737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-737
======================================================================
DUCHESNE CITY WATER RIGHTS CONVEYANCE ACT
_______
July 17, 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
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3468]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3468) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
to certain water rights to Duchesne City, Utah, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The H.R. 3468 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain water rights to Duchesne City, Utah.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Duchesne City Water Rights Conveyance Act, sponsored by
Congressman Chris Cannon, gives water rights, previously
appropriated to the United States Indian Service to the City of
Duchesne. This is essentially a technical change, giving
Duchesne rights to water it has always used. In exchange, the
Ute Indian Tribe and any affiliates will connect to the
Duchesne City municipal water system without any water impact
or connection fee. The bill also provides that the Tribe or any
affiliates must not be required to transfer any water or water
rights in exchange for the connection.
When the City of Duchesne was established in 1905, the
Secretary of the Interior directed the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs to select certain tracts of land in the Uintah Indian
Reservations to be reserved under the Townsite Act. Shortly
thereafter, the Acting Indian Agent for the Uintah Indian
Reservation filed two applications for appropriate water for
municipal and domestic uses in the City of Duchesne. The holder
of these rights is the U.S. Indian Service and it provides that
the water is be used by the City for domestic and municipal
uses. The City has always used the water. However, since the
U.S. Indian Service no longer exists, there is no ability to
transfer the water right to the City of Duchesne. This bill
would convey those rights.
With regard to the historical situation, the Committee
understands that:
(1) in 1861, President Lincoln established the Uintah
Valley Reservation by Executive Order, Congress
confirmed the Executive Order in 1864 (13 Stat. 63),
and additional lands were added to form the Uintah
Indian Reservation (now known as the Uintah and Ouray
Indian Reservation);
(2) pursuant to subsequent acts of Congress, lands
were allotted to the Indians of the reservation, and
unallotted lands were restored to the public domain to
be disposed of under homestead and townsite laws;
(3) in July 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt
reserved lands for the townsite of Duchesne by
Presidential proclamation and pursuant to the
applicable townsite laws;
(4) in July 1905, the United States, through the
``Acting U.S. Indian Agent In behalf of the Indians of
the Uintah Indian Reservation, Utah,'' filed two
applications, 43-180 and 43-203, under the laws of the
State of Utah to appropriate certain waters;
(5) the stated purposes of the water appropriation
applications respectively ``for irrigation and domestic
supply for townsite purposes in the lands herein
described,'' and ``for the purpose of irrigatingIndian
allotments on the Uintah Indian Reservation, Utah . . . and for an
irrigating and domestic water supply for townsite purposes in the lands
herein described'';
(6) the United States subsequently filed change
applications which provided that the entire
appropriation would be used for ``municipal and
domestic purposes'' in the town of Duchesne;
(7) the State Engineer approved the change
application, and the State of Utah issued water rights
certificates, identified as Certificate Number 1034 and
1056, in the name of the United States Indian Service
in 1921, pursuant to the applications filed, for
domestic and municipal uses in the town of Duchesne;
(8) non-Indians settled the town of Duchesne, and the
inhabitants have utilized the waters appropriated by
the United States for townsite purposes;
(9) pursuant to Title V of Public Law 102-575,
Congress ratified the quantification of the reserved
water rights of the Ute Indian Tribe, subject to re-
ratification of the water compact by the State of Utah
and the Tribe;
(10) the Ute Indian Tribe does not oppose legislation
which will convey the water rights appropriated by the
United States in 1905 to the City of Duchesne because
the appropriations do not serve the purposes, rights,
or interests of the Tribe or its members, because the
full amount of the reserved water rights of the Tribe
will be quantified in other proceedings, and because
the Tribe and its members will receive substantial
benefits through such legislation; and
(11) the Secretary of the Interior requires
additional authority to clear title to those
appropriations made by the United States in 1905 for
the City of Duchesne to continue to enjoy the use of
those water rights and to provide additional benefits
to the Ute Indian Tribe and its members as originally
envisioned by the 1905 appropriations.
The Committee recognizes that in carrying out the
conveyance authorized by section 2 of the bill, the Secretary
of the Interior shall comply with any applicable environmental
laws and regulations. Additionally, except as provided in
section 2, nothing in this bill may be construed as a
relinquishment or reduction of any water rights reserved,
appropriated, or otherwise secured by the United States under
the laws of the State of Utah on or before the date of
enactment of H.R. 3468. Nothing in this bill may be construed
as establishing a precedent for conveying or otherwise
transferring water rights held by the United States. Finally,
nothing in this bill may be construed to affect or modify any
treaty or other right of the Ute Indian Tribe or any other
Indian Tribe.
Committee Action
H.R. 3468 was introduced on November 18, 1999, by
Congressman Chris Cannon (R-UT). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources. On April 4, 2000, the Committee held a
hearing on the bill. On May 24, 2000, the Full Resources
Committee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were offered
and the bill was 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 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.
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, June 8, 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. 3468, the Duchesne
City Water Rights Conveyance Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Applebaum, who can be reached at 266-2860.
Sincerely,
Steven M. Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3468--Duchesne City Water Rights Conveyance Act
H.R. 3468 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain water rights to Duchesne City, Utah. In 1905,
the federal government obtained certificates for these water
rights under Utah state laws. In practice, Duchesne City has
always used the water rights for its water supply. As a result,
CBO estimates that implementing S. 3468 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget.
H.R. 3468 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill
contains no private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. As a condition of
receiving these water rights, the bill would require Duchesne
City to allow the Ute Tribe or members of that tribe to access
the municipal water system without paying water impact or
connection fees.
The CBO staff contracts for this estimate are Rachel
Applebaum (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the
state, local, and tribal impact). This 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.