Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 94 (Friday, July 9, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 94 (Friday, July 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5416-H5440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 711, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2828), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at
increasing and diversifying domestic water resources, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 711, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 2828 is as follows:

H.R. 2828

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Water Supply, Reliability,
and Environmental Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Purposes.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM

Sec. 101. General authority.
Sec. 102. Authority to study, plan, design, and construct.
Sec. 103. Criteria for grants.
Sec. 104. Annual report.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 106. Limitation on eligibility for funding.

TITLE II--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

Sec. 201. CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Sec. 202. Management.
Sec. 203. Implementation schedule report.
Sec. 204. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 205. Federal share of costs.
Sec. 206. Use of existing authorities and funds.
Sec. 207. Compliance with State and Federal law.

TITLE III--SALTON SEA

Sec. 301. Funding to address Salton Sea.

TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY OFFICE

Sec. 401. Establishment of office.
Sec. 402. Acceptance and expenditure of contributions.

TITLE V--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Rural water supply program.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Bay-delta solution area.--The term ``Bay-Delta solution
area'' means the Bay-Delta watershed and the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California, and the
areas in which diverted/exported water is used.
(2) Bay-delta watershed.--The term ``Bay-Delta watershed''
means the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River Delta, and the
rivers and watersheds that are tributary to that delta.
(3) Calfed bay-delta program.--The term ``CALFED Bay-Delta
Program'' means the programs, projects, complementary
actions, and activities undertaken through coordinated
planning, implementation, and assessment activities of the
State and Federal agencies in a manner consistent with the
Objectives and Solution Principles of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program as stated in the Record of Decision.
(4) Congressional authorizing committees.--The term
``congressional authorizing committees'' means the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
(5) Commissioner.--The term ``commissioner'' means the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
(6) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the water account established by the
Federal agencies and State agencies pursuant to the Record of
Decision to reduce incidental take and provide a mechanism
for recovery of species.
(7) Federal agencies.--The term ``Federal agencies'' means
the Federal agencies that are signatories to Attachment 3 of
the Record of Decision.
(8) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(9) Implementation memorandum.--The term ``Implementation
Memorandum'' means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
Implementation Memorandum of Understanding dated August 28,
2000, executed by the Federal agencies and the State
agencies, as such record of decision may be adapted or
modified by the Secretary in accordance with applicable law.
(10) Reclamation states.--The term ``Reclamation States''
means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming,
and Texas.
(11) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Federal programmatic Record of Decision dated
August 28, 2000, issued by the Federal agencies and supported
by the State.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(13) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(14) State agencies.--The term ``State agencies'' means the
California State agencies that are signatories to Attachment
3 of the Record of Decision.
(15) Water resource agencies.--The term ``Water resource
agencies'' means the Federal agencies that are signatories to
Attachment 3 of the Record of Decision.
(16) Water supply.--The term ``water supply'' means a
quantity of water that is developed or derived from--
(A) increased water yield;
(B) recycling existing sources;
(C) desalination of seawater or brackish water;
(D) surface or ground water storage;
(E) conservation; or
(F) other actions or water management tools that improve
the availability and reliability of water supplies for
beneficial uses in all water year types, including critically
dry years.
(17) Water yield.--The term ``water yield'' means a new
quantity of water in storage that is reliably available in
critically dry years for beneficial uses.

SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To enhance and improve water supply, water yield, and
water reliability coordinated through the Secretary, in
cooperation, and consultation with Water Resource Agencies.
(2) To foster and promote the development of supplemental
and new water supplies, coordinated through the Secretary, in
consultation and coordination with the Water Resource
Agencies, through water reuse and salinity management.
(3) To establish a competitive, performance-based program,
coordinated through the Secretary, in consultation and
coordination with the Water Resource Agencies, to provide
financial incentives to entities to develop demonstration
projects designed to treat seawater and brackish water,
wastewater and impaired ground water.
(4) To establish an office, in any Reclamation State
requesting such an office, for the use of all Federal and
State agencies that will be involved in issuing permits and
conducting environmental reviews for water supply, water
supply capital improvement projects, levee maintenance, and
delivery systems in any Reclamation State requesting such an
office.
(5) To provide assistance to States, municipalities, other
local governmental agencies (including soil and water
conservation districts) and investor-owned utilities that
provide municipal water supply service pursuant to State law
in the design and construction of projects to desalinate
seawater and put to beneficial use impaired ground water and
brackish water.
(6) To implement and abide by the 4 primary objectives and
solution principles set forth in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. To authorize funding and coordinate sustained
funding sources, through the Secretary, for the
implementation of a comprehensive program to achieve
increased water yield and water supply, improved water
quality, and enhanced environmental benefits as well as
improved water system reliability, water use efficiency,
watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection.
(7) To implement other related provisions to improve water
supply and yield.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM

SEC. 101. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

(a) Establishment of a Water Resources Coordination
Office.--There shall be established within the Office of the
Secretary the

[[Page H5417]]

Office of the Federal Water Resources Coordinator (referred
to in this title as the ``Coordinator'') who shall be
responsible for coordinating the Water Resource Agencies
activities addressing water desalination (including sea and
brackish water), impaired ground water, brine removal, and
water reuse projects and activities authorized under this
title.
(b) Secretarial Responsibility.--The Secretary, through the
Coordinator, shall carry out the responsibilities, as
specifically identified as a responsibility of the
Coordinator under this title, and may not delegate these
responsibilities to the Water Resource Agencies. The
Coordinator at its sole option may use the services of the
Water Resource Agencies on any project deemed necessary.
(c) Assessment of Existing Federal Authorities.--The
Secretary, through the Coordinator and in consultation with
the Water Resource agencies, shall develop and transmit to
Congress no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act,
an assessment report that identifies the following:
(1) A list of authorities, including mandatory and
discretionary trust funds, other than those under this title,
to undertake activities under section 102.
(2) A list of all Water Resource Agencies expenditures
since fiscal year 1998 undertaken for projects and activities
related to this title.
(3) A plan of Water Resource Agencies coordination to meet
the criteria, and guidelines as determined under this title.
(4) A detailed/coordinated Water Resource Agencies budget
review document, including outyears funding requirements.
(5) Recommendations for alternative financing mechanisms.
(d) Establishment of Guidelines for Activities Undertaken
by the Coordinator.--
(1) Rules and guidelines.--In carrying out activities under
this title the Secretary, acting through the Coordinator, in
coordination with the Water Resource Agencies, shall issue
rules and guidelines for the submission of selection,
solicitation, and timelines of eligible projects and
activities seeking grants assistance to analyze, plan,
develop and construct, including but not limited to, the
following:
(A) Sea and brackish water desalination projects, including
analysis and technology development, reclamation of
wastewater, and impaired ground and surface waters.
(B) Brine management and disposal, including analysis and
technology development. Such analysis shall include, but not
be limited to, the effects of concentrate disposal and
possible mitigation measures.
(C) Water reuse, including, but not limited to, techniques
for cleanup and treatment of ground water contamination,
especially ground water basins that are the primary source of
drinking water supplies.
(2) Equitable selection.--The Secretary shall ensure the
rules and guidelines provide for the equitable selection, to
the maximum extent practicable, of projects and
distribution of grants among the eligible activities
identified under this section.
(3) Timeframe.--Such rules and guidelines shall be issued
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(e) Agency Participation.--The Coordinator, in consultation
with the Water Resource Agencies, shall--
(1) determine available and appropriate accounts, both
mandatory and permanent, including Federal trust funds; and
(2) direct the Federal agency heads to spend authorized
funds, if available within their agency, based on their
proportional Federal interest.

SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO STUDY, PLAN, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Coordinator, in
cooperation and consultation with the Water Resource
Agencies, shall undertake a competitive grant program--
(1) to investigate and identify opportunities for the
study, plan, and design of activities under this title; and
(2) to construct demonstration and permanent facilities, or
the implementation of other programs and activities, to meet
the criteria under this title.
(b) Conditions.--No grant may be made under this title for
the design and construction of any project until after--
(1) an appraisal investigation and a feasibility study
(which may be performed, if applicable, by the non-Federal
sponsor and submitted to the Secretary, through the
Coordinator, for review) have been completed and approved by
the Secretary, through the Coordinator;
(2) the Secretary, through the Coordinator, has determined
that, if applicable, the non-Federal project sponsor has the
financial resources available to fund the non-Federal share
of the project's costs; and
(3) the Secretary, through the Coordinator, has approved,
if applicable, a cost-sharing agreement with the non-Federal
project sponsor that commits the non-Federal project sponsor
to funding its share of the project's construction costs on
an annual basis, and ongoing operations and maintenance.

SEC. 103. CRITERIA FOR GRANTS.

In making grants pursuant to this title, the Secretary,
acting through the Coordinator shall give priority to those
projects which meet at least one of the following criteria:
(1) The requirements of the Secretary, as applicable, and
any applicable State requirements.
(2) Is agreed to by the Federal and non-Federal entities
with authority and responsibility for the project.
(3) Increase water supply yield.
(4) Improve water use efficiency and water conservation.
(5) Reduce or stabilize demand on existing Federal and
State water supply facilities.
(6) Improve water quality.
(7) Employ innovative approaches, including but not limited
to, ground water recharge.
(8) Facilitate the transfer and adoption of technology.
(9) Employ regional solutions that increase the
availability of locally and regionally developed water
supplies.
(10) Remediate a contaminated ground water basin.
(11) Provide a secure source of new water supplies for
national defense activities.
(12) Reduce the threat of a water supply disruption as a
result of a natural disaster or acts of terrorism.
(13) Help Water Resource Agencies meet existing legal
requirements, contractual water supply obligations, Indian
trust responsibilities, water rights settlements, water
quality control plans and department of health requirements,
Federal and State environmental laws, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, or other obligations.
(14) Promote and applies a regional or watershed approach
to water resource management or cross-boundary issues,
implements an integrated resources management approach,
increases water management flexibility, or forms a
partnership with other entities.
(15) Improve health and safety of the general public.
(16) Provide benefits outside the region in which the
project occurs.
(17) Provide benefits to the agricultural community.

SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.

The Secretary shall provide the Congress an annual report
that includes the following:
(1) A list of projects, and project details, amount of
past, current, and projected funding.
(2) Documentation of the accounts within the Water Resource
Agencies funding.
(3) The benefits gained by projects, and to which
beneficiaries and users, funded under this title.
(4) An assessment of how the project met each of the
evaluation criteria under this title.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Activities and Projects Under This Title.--
(1) Determination of water resources agency
participation.--If existing authorities are not available to
carry out activities addressed under this title, the
Coordinator, in consultation with the Water Resource
agencies, shall make the determination of Federal
participation and Federal agency cost share.
(2) Funding.--Subject to section 105(a)(1) and section
105(b), there are authorized to be appropriated--
(A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(B) $100,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
(b) Limitations on Grants.--
(1) Location of project.--Grants carried out by the
Secretary, through the Coordinator, may be carried out
through the 50 States.
(2) Per state limit.--Except as provided in under this
section, of the amount available in a fiscal year for grants
under this title, not more than 30 percent may be used for
projects in a single State.
(c) Cost Sharing.--Except as provided under this section,
and notwithstanding any other provision of this title. Grants
for projects receiving Federal assistance under this title
shall not exceed the lesser of $50,000,000 (indexed annually
for inflation) or 35 percent of the total cost of the
project.

SEC. 106. LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING.

A project that receives funds under this Act shall be
ineligible to receive Federal funds from any other source for
the same purpose unless such funds are provided to ensure
compliance with a Federal mandate.

TITLE II--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

SEC. 201. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(1) The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to
develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that
will increase water supply and yield, improve water
management, and restore the ecological health of the Bay-
Delta solution area.
(2) The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was developed as a joint
Federal-State program to deal effectively with the
multijurisdictional issues involved in managing the Bay-Delta
Watershed.
(b) In General.--
(1) Authorization.--The Federal agencies, in consultation
with State agencies, are authorized to participate in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in accordance with this title, and
consistent with the Objectives and Solution Principles set
forth in the Record of Decision.
(2) Goals.--The goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program shall
consist of components that include water supply and yield,
ecosystem restoration, water supply reliability,

[[Page H5418]]

conveyance, water use efficiency, water quality, water
transfers, watersheds, Environmental Water Account, levee
stability, and science.
(3) Balance.--CALFED Bay-Delta Program activities
consisting of protecting water quality, including but not
limited to, drinking water quality, restoring ecological
health, improving water supply reliability, including
additional water supply and water yield and conveyance, and
protecting levees in the Bay-Delta watershed, shall progress
in a balanced manner.
(c) Administration of Activities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in this title, subject to the cost-share and other provisions
of this title, if the activity--
(A) has been subject to environmental review and approval
as required under applicable Federal and State law; and
(B) has been approved and certified by the Secretary to be
consistent with the Objectives and Solution Principles of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program as stated in Record of Decision.
(2) Multiple benefit projects favored.--The Secretary and
Federal agencies are authorized to carry out the activities
set forth in this title. In selecting projects and programs
for increasing water yield and water supply, improving water
quality, and enhancing environmental benefits, projects and
programs with multiple benefits shall be emphasized.
(3) Elements regulated.--To the extent that CALFED Bay-
Delta Program projects and elements are subject to regulation
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency shall not consider, as alternatives to
projects that are elements of the overall CALFED Bay-Delta
Program, programs, projects, or actions beyond those
described in the Record of Decision, nor shall they favor one
CALFED Bay-Delta Program project or element over another.
(4) Balance.--The Secretary shall ensure that all elements
of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program need to be completed and
operated cooperatively to maintain the balanced progress in
all CALFED Bay-Delta Program areas.
(d) Program Activities.--
(1) Water storage.--Except as provided by section 207(b),
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $102,000,000
may be expended for the following:
(A) Water storage supply and yield.--For purposes of
implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the Secretary is
authorized to undertake all necessary planning activities and
feasibility studies required for the development of
recommendations by the Secretary to Congress on the
construction and implementation of specific water supply and
yield, ground water management, and ground water storage
projects and implementation of comprehensive water management
planning. The requirements of section 9(a) of the Act of
August 4, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(a); 53 Stat. 1193) shall be
deemed to be met through the performance of a feasibility
study as authorized within this section as well as those
feasibility studies authorized under the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7,
House Report 108-10, division D, title II, section 215.
(B) Feasibility studies.--All feasibility studies completed
for storage projects as a result of this section shall
include identification of project benefits and beneficiaries
and a cost allocation plan consistent with the benefits to be
received, for both governmental and non-governmental
entities.
(C) Disapproval resolution.--If the Secretary determines a
project to be feasible, and meets the requirements under
subparagraph (B), the report shall be submitted to Congress.
If Congress does not pass a disapproval resolution of the
feasibility study during the first 120 days before Congress
(not including days on which either the House of
Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day
certain) the project shall be authorized, subject to
appropriations.
(D) Water supply and water yield study.--(i) The Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in consultation
with the State, shall conduct a study of available water
supplies and water yield and existing demand and future needs
for water--
(I) within the units of the Central Valley Project;
(II) within the area served by Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors and municipal and
industrial water service contractors; and
(III) within the Bay-Delta solution area.
(ii) Relationship to prior study.--The study under clause
(i) shall incorporate and revise as necessary the study
required by section 3408(j) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
(E) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
congressional authorizing committees by not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this title describing
the following:
(i) Water yield and water supply improvements, if any, for
Central Valley Project agricultural water service contractors
and municipal and industrial water service contractors.
(ii) All water management actions or projects that would
improve water yield or water supply and that, if taken or
constructed, would balance available water supplies and
existing demand for those contractors and other water users
of the Bay-Delta watershed with due recognition of water
right priorities and environmental needs.
(iii) The financial costs of the actions and projects
described under clause (ii).
(iv) The beneficiaries of those actions and projects and an
assessment of their willingness to pay the capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs thereof.
(F) Other activities.--Studying, developing and
implementing ground water management and ground water storage
projects (not to exceed $50,000,000); and
(G) Planning.--Comprehensive water management planning (not
to exceed $6,000,000).
(2) Conveyance.--Except as provided by section 207(b), the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004
through 2007 under this Act, no more than $77,000,000 may be
expended for the following:
(A) South Delta Actions (not to exceed $45,000,000):
(i) South Delta Improvements Program for the following:

(I) To increase the State Water Project export limit to
8500 cfs, subject to subclause (VI).
(II) To install permanent, operable barriers in the south
Delta. The Federal Agencies shall cooperate with the State to
accelerate installation of the permanent, operable barriers
in the south Delta, with the intent to complete that
installation not later than the end of fiscal year 2006.
(III) To design and construct fish screens and intake
facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy Pumping
Plant facilities.
(IV) To increase the State Water Project export to the
maximum capability of 10,300 cfs.

(ii) Reduction of agricultural drainage in south Delta
channels and other actions necessary to minimize impacts of
such drainage on water quality, including but not limited to,
design and construction of the relocation of drinking water
intake facilities to delta water users. The Secretary shall
coordinate actions for relocating intake facilities on a time
schedule consistent with subclause (i)(II).
(iii) Design and construction of lower San Joaquin River
floodway improvements.
(iv) Installation and operation of temporary barriers in
the south Delta until fully operable barriers are
constructed.
(v) Actions to protect navigation and local diversions not
adequately protected by the temporary barriers.
(vi) Actions to increase pumping shall be accomplished in a
manner consistent with California law protecting:

(I) deliveries to, costs of, and water suppliers and water
users, including but not limited to, agricultural users, that
have historically relied on water diverted from the Delta;
and

(II) the quality of water for existing municipal,
industrial, and agricultural uses.

(vi) Actions at Franks Tract to improve water quality in
the Delta.
(B) North Delta Actions (not to exceed $12,000,000):
(i) Evaluation and implementation of improved operational
procedures for the Delta Cross Channel to address fishery and
water quality concerns.
(ii) Evaluation of a screened through-Delta facility on the
Sacramento River.
(iii) Design and construction of lower Mokelumne River
floodway improvements.
(C) Interties (not to exceed $10,000,000):
(i) Evaluation and construction of an intertie between the
State Water Project and the Central Valley Project facilities
at or near the City of Tracy.
(ii) Assessment of the connection of the Central Valley
Project to the State Water Project's Clifton Court Forebay
with a corresponding increase in the Forebay's screened
intake.
(D) Evaluation and implementation of the San Luis Reservoir
lowpoint improvement project (not to exceed $10,000,000).
(3) Water use efficiency.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $153,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Water conservation projects that provide water supply
reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the
Bay-Delta solution area (not to exceed $61,000,000).
(B) Technical assistance for urban and agricultural water
conservation projects (not to exceed $5,000,000).
(C) Water recycling and desalination projects, including
but not limited to projects identified in the Bay Area Water
Recycling Plan and the Southern California Comprehensive
Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (not to exceed
$84,000,000), as follows:
(i) In providing financial assistance under this clause,
the Secretary shall give priority consideration to projects
that include regional solutions to benefit regional water
supply and reliability needs.
(ii) The Secretary shall review any feasibility level
studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line
projects that have been completed, whether or not those
studies were prepared with financial assistance from the
Secretary.
(iii) The Secretary shall report to the Congress within 90
days after the completion of

[[Page H5419]]

a feasibility study or the review of a feasibility study for
the purposes of providing design and construction assistance
for the construction of desalination and regional brine line
projects.
(iv) The Federal share of the cost of any activity carried
out with assistance under this clause may not exceed the
lesser of 35 percent of the total cost of the activity or
$50,000,000.
(D) Water measurement and transfer actions (not to exceed
$1,500,000).
(E) Certification of implementation of best management
practices for urban water conservation (not to exceed
$1,500,000).
(4) Water transfers.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $3,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Increasing the availability of existing facilities for
water transfers.
(B) Lowering transaction costs through permit streamlining.
(C) Maintaining a water transfer information clearinghouse.
(5) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under
this Act, no more than $75,000,000 may be expended for
implementation of the Environmental Water Account.
(6) Integrated regional water management plans.--Of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004
through 2007 under this Act, no more than $95,000,000 may be
expended for the following:
(A) Establishing a competitive grants program to assist
local and regional communities in California in developing
and implementing integrated regional water management plans
to carry out the Objectives and Solution Principles of the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program as stated in the Record of Decision.
(B) Implementation of projects and programs in California
that improve water supply reliability, water quality,
ecosystem restoration, and flood protection, or meet other
local and regional needs, that are consistent with, and make
a significant contribution to, Stage 1 of the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program.
(7) Ecosystem restoration.--(A) Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under
this title, no more than $100,000,000 may be expended for
projects under this subsection.
(B) The Secretary is authorized to undertake the following
projects under this paragraph:
(i) Restoration of habitat in the San Francisco Bay-Delta
watershed, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including
tidal wetlands and riparian habitat.
(ii) Fish screen and fish passage improvement projects.
(iii) Implementation of an invasive species program,
including prevention, control, and eradication.
(iv) Development and integration of State and Federal
agricultural programs that benefit wildlife into the
Ecosystem Restoration Program.
(v) Financial and technical support for locally-based
collaborative programs to restore habitat while addressing
the concerns of local communities.
(vi) Water quality improvement projects to manage salinity,
selenium, mercury, pesticides, trace metals, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, sediment, and other pollutants.
(vii) Land and water acquisitions to improve habitat and
fish spawning and survival in the Bay-Delta watershed.
(viii) Integrated flood management and levee protection
projects for improving ecosystem restoration.
(ix) Scientific evaluations and targeted research on
program activities, including appropriate use of adaptive
management concepts.
(x) Preparation of management plans for all properties
acquired, and update current management plans, prior to the
purchase or any contribution to the purchase of any interest
in land for ecosystem.
(xi) Strategic planning and tracking of program performance
using established protocols and/or bio-indicators.
(C) Project Initiation Report for each project, describing
project purpose, objective, and cost, shall be transmitted to
Congress following Secretarial certification, 30 days (not
including days on which either the House of Representatives
or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three calendar days to a day certain) prior to
implementing ecosystem restoration actions as described under
this paragraph. Such reports shall be required for all
ecosystem projects, (including comprehensive projects that
are composed of several components and are to be completed by
staged implementation) exceeding $20,000 in Federal funds.
Annual ecosystem restoration project summary reports shall be
submitted to Congress through the Secretary highlighting
progress of the project implementation. The reports required
to be submitted under this paragraph shall consider the
following on each project:
(i) A description of ecological monitoring data to be
collected for the restoration projects and how the data are
to be integrated, streamlined, compatible, and designed to
measure overall trends of ecosystem health in the Bay-Delta
watershed.
(ii) Whether the restoration project has integrated
monitoring plans and descriptions of protocols, or bio-
indicators, to be used for gauging cost-effective performance
of the project.
(iii) Whether the proposed project is a part of a larger,
more comprehensive restoration project in a particular part
of the solution area, and if so, how the proposed project
contributes to the larger project.
(iv) A secretarial determination, or strategy, that
utilizes existing Federal land, State land, or other land
acquired for ecosystem restoration, with amounts provided by
the United States or the State, to the extent that such lands
are available within the CALFED solution area.
(v) A determination of the potential cumulative impacts, or
induced damages of fee title, easement, and/or lease
acquisition of land on local and regional economies, and
adjacent land and landowners; and a description of how such
impacts will be mitigated.
(vi) A description of actions that will be taken to
mitigate any induced damages from the conversion of
agriculture land including the degree to which wildlife and
habitat values will increase due to the land conversion.
(D) Conditions, if applicable, for projects and activities
under this paragraph are as follows:
(i) A requirement that before obligating or expending
Federal funds to acquire land, the Secretary shall first
determine that existing Federal land, State land, or other
land acquired for ecosystem restoration with amounts provided
by the United States or the State, to the extent such lands
are available, is not available for that purpose. If no
public land is available the Secretary, prior to any federal
expenditure for private land acquisition, shall--
(I) make an accounting of all habitat types located on
publicly owned land throughout the solution area;
(II) not convert prime farm land and unique farm land, to
the maximum extent as practicable, as identified by local,
State, or Federal land use inventories, including the Natural
Resources Conservation Service;
(III) not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use; and
(IV) not involve other changes in existing environment due
to location and nature of converting farmland to non-farmland
use.
(ii) A requirement that in determining whether to acquire
private land for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall--
(I) conduct appropriate analysis, including cost valuation
to assure that private land acquisitions prioritize easements
and leases over acquisition by fee title unless easements and
leases are unavailable or unsuitable for the stated purposes;
(II) consider the potential cumulative impacts on the local
and regional economies of transferring the property into
government ownership and--

(aa) describe the actions that will be taken, to the
maximum extent practicable, to mitigate any induced damages;
and

(bb) determine that the land acquired will add increasing
value to the purposes of ecosystem restoration;

(III) mitigate any potential induced damage, to the maximum
extent practicable, of any conversion of agriculture land for
ecosystem restoration due to the implementation of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program; and
(IV) partner with landowners and local agencies to develop
cooperating landowner commitments that are likely to meet
coequal objectives of achieving local economic and social
goals and implementing the ecosystem restoration goals.
(8) Watersheds.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds
affecting the Bay-Delta solution area.
(B) Technical assistance for watershed assessments and
management plans.
(C) Developing and implementing locally-based watershed
conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
(9) Water quality.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley
to improve downstream water quality, including habitat
restoration projects that reduce drainage and improve water
quality, provided that--
(i) a plan is in place for monitoring downstream water
quality improvements;
(ii) State and local agencies are consulted on the
activities to be funded; and
(iii) this clause is not intended to create any right,
benefit, or privilege.
(B) Implementing source control programs in the Bay-Delta
watershed.
(C) Developing recommendations through technical panels and
advisory council processes to meet the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in water quality for
all uses.
(D) Investing in treatment technology demonstration
projects.
(E) Controlling runoff into the California aqueduct and
other similar conveyances.
(F) Addressing water quality problems at the North Bay
Aqueduct.
(G) Studying recirculation of export water to reduce
salinity and improve dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin
River.
(H) Projects that may meet the Objectives and Solution
Principles of the water quality component of CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
(I) Development of water quality exchanges and other
programs to make high quality water available to urban areas.

[[Page H5420]]

(J) Development and implementation of a plan to meet all
existing water quality standards for which the State and
Federal water projects have responsibility.
(10) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $70,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Assisting local reclamation districts in reconstructing
Delta levees to a base level of protection not to exceed
$20,000,000.
(B) Enhancing the stability of levees that have particular
importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special
Improvement Projects program not to exceed $20,000,000.
(C) Developing best management practices to control and
reverse land subsidence on islands in the Bay-Delta watershed
(not to exceed $1,000,000).
(D) Refining the Delta Emergency Management Plan (not to
exceed $1,000,000).
(E) Developing a Delta Risk Management Strategy after
assessing the consequences of failure levees in the Bay-Delta
watershed from floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes
(not to exceed $500,000).
(F) Developing a strategy for reuse of dredged materials on
islands in the Bay-Delta watershed (not to exceed
$1,500,000).
(G) Evaluating and, where appropriate, rehabilitating the
Suisun Marsh levees (not to exceed $6,000,000).
(H) Integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration, and
levee protection projects, including design and construction
of lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne River floodway
improvements and other projects under the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Comprehensive Study (not to exceed $20,000,000).
(11) Monitoring and analysis.--Of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this
Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the
following:
(A) Establishing and maintaining an independent technical
board, technical panels, and standing boards to provide
oversight and peer review of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
(B) Conducting expert evaluations and scientific
assessments of all CALFED Bay-Delta Program elements.
(C) Coordinating existing monitoring and scientific
research programs.
(D) Developing and implementing adaptive management
experiments to test, refine, and improve technical
understandings.
(E) Establishing performance measures and monitoring and
valuating the performance of all CALFED Bay-Delta Program
elements.
(F) Preparing an annual science report.
(12) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $25,000,000
may be expended by the Secretary, in cooperation with the
State, for the following:
(A) CALFED Bay-Delta Program-wide tracking of schedules,
finances, and performance.
(B) Multi-agency oversight and coordination of CALFED Bay-
Delta Program activities to ensure program balance and
integration.
(C) Development of interagency cross-cut budgets and a
comprehensive finance plan to allocate costs in accordance
with the beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of
Decision.
(D) Coordination of public outreach and involvement,
including tribal, environmental justice, and public advisory
activities under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
(E) Development of annual reports.
(13) Diversification of water supplies.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through
2007 under this Act, no more than $30,000,000 may be expended
to diversify sources of level 2 refuge supplies and modes of
delivery to refuges and to acquire additional water for level
4 refuge supplies.
(e) Authorized Actions.--The Secretary and the Federal
agency heads are authorized to carry out the activities
authorized by this title through the use of grants, loans,
contracts, and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-
Federal entities where the Secretary or Federal agency head
determines that the grant, loan, contract, or cooperative
agreement is likely to assist in implementing the authorized
activity in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective manner.

SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT.

(a) Coordination.--In carrying out the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program, the Federal agencies shall coordinate, to the
maximum extent practicable, their activities with the State
agencies.
(b) Public Participation.--In carrying out the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program, the Federal agencies shall cooperate with
local and tribal governments and the public through a
federally chartered advisory committee or other appropriate
means, to seek input on program elements such as planning,
design, technical assistance, and development of peer review
science programs.
(c) Objective Review and Analysis.--In carrying out the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, the Federal agencies shall seek to
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that--
(1) all major aspects of implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program are subjected to credible and objective scientific
review and economic analysis; and
(2) major decisions are based upon the best available
scientific information.
(d) Agencies' Discretion.--This Act shall not affect the
discretion of any of the Federal agencies or the State
agencies or the authority granted to any of the Federal
agencies or State agencies by any other Federal or State law.
(e) Status Reports.--The Secretary shall report, quarterly
to the Congressional Committees, on the progress in achieving
the water supply targets as described in Section 2.2.4 of the
Record of Decision, the environmental water account
requirements as described in Section 2.2.7, and the water
quality targets as described in Section 2.2.9, and any
pending actions that may affect the ability of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program to achieve those targets and requirements.

SEC. 203. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE REPORT.

(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall
submit a report of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and
December 15 of each year thereafter to the appropriate
authorizing and appropriating Committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives that describes the status and
projected implementation schedule of all components through
fiscal year 2008 of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Report
shall contain the following:
(1) Statement of balance.--The report shall identify the
progress in each of the categories listed in paragraph (2).
The Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall
prepare and certify a statement of whether the program is in
balance taking into consideration the following:
(A) The status of all actions, including goals, schedules,
and financing agreements and funding commitments.
(B) Progress on storage projects, including yield,
conveyance improvements, levee improvements, water quality
projects, and water use efficiency programs and reasons for
any delays.
(C) Completion of key projects and milestones identified in
the Ecosystem Restoration Program.
(D) Development and implementation of local programs for
watershed conservation and restoration.
(E) Progress in improving water supply reliability and
implementing the Environmental Water Account.
(F) Achievement of commitments under State and Federal
endangered species laws.
(G) Implementation of a comprehensive science program.
(H) Progress toward acquisition of the State and Federal
permits, including permits issued under section 404(a) of the
Clean Water Act, for implementation of projects in all
identified program areas.
(I) Progress in achieving benefits in all geographic
regions covered by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
(J) Status of actions that compliment the Record of
Decision.
(K) Status of mitigation measures addressed under section
201(d)(7).
(L) Revisions to funding commitments and CALFED Bay-Delta
Program responsibilities.
(2) Accomplishments in the past fiscal year and year-to-
date in achieving the objectives of--
(A) additional and improved water storage; including supply
and yield;
(B) water quality;
(C) water use efficiency;
(D) ecosystem restoration;
(E) watershed management;
(F) levee system integrity;
(G) water transfers;
(H) water conveyance; and
(I) water supply reliability.
(3) Revised schedule.--If the report and statement of
balance under subsection (a) concludes that the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program is not progressing in a balanced manner so that
no certification of balanced implementation can be made, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, shall prepare a
revised schedule to ensure that the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
is likely to progress in a balanced manner consistent with
the objectives and solution principles of the Record of
Decision and in consideration of subsections (a) and (b) of
this section. This revised schedule shall be subject to
approval by the Secretary, in consultation by the Governor,
and upon such approval shall be submitted to the appropriate
authorizing and appropriating Committees of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
(b) Crosscut Budget and Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Crosscut budget.--The President's Budget shall include
the appropriate departmental and agency authorities, and
request for the level of funding for each of the Federal
agencies to carry out its responsibilities under the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program. Such funds shall be requested for the
Federal agency with authority and programmatic responsibility
for the obligation of such funds. No later than 30 days after
submission of the President's Budget to the Congress, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit
to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives an updated
interagency budget crosscut report, as required under Public
Law 108-7.
(2) Financial summary.--As part of the crosscut budget
submission, a financial report certified by the Secretary,
and the Office of Management and Budget, containing a
detailed accounting of current year, budget year and all
funds received and obligated by

[[Page H5421]]

all Federal and State agencies responsible for implementing
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in the previous fiscal year, a
budget for the proposed projects (including a description of
the project, authorization level, and project status) to be
carried out through fiscal year 2008 the Federal portion of
funds authorized under this title, and a list of all projects
to be undertaken in the upcoming fiscal year with the Federal
portion of funds authorized under this title.

SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
and the heads of the Federal agencies $880,000,000 to pay the
Federal share of programs and activities under this title for
fiscal years 2004 through 2007, in accordance with the
provisions of this title. The funds shall remain available
without fiscal year limitation.

SEC. 205. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Federal share of the cost of
implementing of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program as set forth in
the Record of Decision shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
(b) CALFED Bay-Delta Program Beneficiaries.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
beneficiaries, including the environment, shall pay for
benefits received from all projects or activities carried out
under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. This requirement shall
not be limited to storage and conveyance projects and shall
be implemented so as to encourage integrated resource
planning.

SEC. 206. USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND FUNDS.

(a) Generally.--The heads of the Federal agencies shall use
the authority under the alternative Acts identified by the
Secretary to carry out the purposes of this title. Funds
available under the alternative Acts shall be used before
other funds made available under this title for the same
activities.
(b) Use of Funds.--In addition to funds authorized and
appropriated for section 201(d)(1) or section 201(d)(2), the
Secretary, in consultation with the heads of the Federal
agencies, may use money appropriated for any activity
authorized under this title for any activity authorized under
section 201(d)(1) or section 201(d)(2) if the Secretary, in
consultation with the heads of the Federal agencies,
determines that the funds appropriated for the other activity
cannot be used for that other activity. This section shall be
construed to apply to funds appropriated after the date of
the enactment of this Act unless the Act appropriating the
funds specifically and explicitly states that this section
shall not apply to those funds.
(c) Use of Unexpended Budget Authority.--The Secretary is
authorized to utilize all unexpended budget authority under
this title for any activity authorized under section
201(d)(1) or section 201(d)(2).
(d) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and annual thereafter, the Secretary,
in consultation with the heads of the Federal agencies, shall
transmit to Congress a report that describes the following:
(1) A list of all existing authorities, including the
authorities listed in subsection (a), under which the
Secretary or the heads of the Federal agencies may carry out
the purposes of this Act.
(2) A list funds authorized in the previous fiscal year for
the authorities listed under paragraph (1).
(3) A list of the projects carried out with the funds
listed in paragraph (2) and the amount of funds obligated and
expended for each project.

SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

Nothing in this Act--
(1) invalidates of preempts State water law or an
interstate compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated
share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water,
whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or
final judicial allocations;
(3) preempts or modifies any State or Federal law or
interstate compact governing water quality or disposal; or
(4) confers on any non-federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource.

TITLE III--SALTON SEA

SEC. 301. FUNDING TO ADDRESS SALTON SEA.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$300,000,000 for activities to address issues surrounding the
Salton Sea.

TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY OFFICE

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

The Secretary shall establish an office, in Sacramento
California, and may establish other offices in the capitol of
any Reclamation State requesting such an office, for projects
within their State, for the use of all Federal agencies and
State agencies that are likely to be involved in issuing
permits and conducting environmental reviews for water
supply, water supply capital improvement projects, levee
maintenance, and delivery systems in California or any
Reclamation State requesting such an office.

SEC. 402. ACCEPTANCE AND EXPENDITURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the
consideration of permits and the conducting of environmental
reviews for all projects described in section 401 and to
offset the Federal costs of processing such permits and
conducting such reviews. The Secretary shall allocate funds
received under this section among Federal agencies in
accordance with the costs such agencies incur in processing
such permits and conducting such reviews. The allocated funds
shall be for reimbursements of such costs.
(b) Protection of Impartial Decisionmaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary and the heads Federal
agencies receiving funds under this section shall ensure that
the use of the funds accepted under this section will not
impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the issuance
of permits or conducting of environmental reviews, either
substantively or procedurally, or diminish, modify, or
otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory authorities of
such agencies.

TITLE V--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

SEC. 501. RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish a
program to plan, design, and construct rural water systems in
coordination with other Federal agencies with rural water
programs, and in cooperation with non-Federal project
entities.
(b) Requirements.--Provisions to be included in the
establishment of a rural water system shall include the
following:
(1) Appraisal investigations.
(2) Feasibility studies.
(3) Environmental reports.
(4) Cost sharing responsibilities.
(5) Responsibility for operation and maintenance.
(6) Prohibition for funding for irrigation.
(c) Criteria.--The Secretary is authorized to develop
criteria for determining which projects are eligible for
participation in the program established under this section.
(d) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress the program developed under this section.
(e) Reclamation States.--The program established by this
section shall be limited to Reclamation States.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is adopted.
The text of H.R. 2828, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2828

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Water Supply, Reliability,
and Environmental Improvement Act''.

TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``California Water Security
and Environmental Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Calfed bay-delta program.--The terms ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Program'' and ``Program'' mean the programs, projects,
complementary actions, and activities undertaken through
coordinated planning, implementation, and assessment
activities of the State and Federal Agencies in a manner
consistent with the Record of Decision.
(2) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the cooperative management program
established pursuant to the Record of Decision to reduce
incidental take and provide a mechanism for recovery of
species.
(3) Federal agencies.--The term ``Federal agencies'' means
the Federal agencies that are signatories to Attachment 3 of
the Record of Decision.
(4) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(5) Reclamation states.--The term ``Reclamation States''
means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming,
and Texas.
(6) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision, dated
August 28, 2000.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(9) State agencies.--The term ``State agencies'' means the
California State agencies that are signatories to Attachment
3 of the Record of Decision.
(10) Water yield.--The term ``water yield'' means a new
quantity of water in storage that is reliably available in
critically dry years for beneficial uses.

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

[[Page H5422]]

drinking water quality, restoring ecological health,
improving water supply reliability (including additional
water storage and water yield and conveyance), and protecting
Delta levees will progress in a balanced manner.
(b) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in paragraphs (2) through (5) in furtherance of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision,
subject to the cost-share and other provisions of this title.
(2) Multiple benefit projects favored.--In selecting
projects and programs for increasing water yield and water
supply, improving water quality, and enhancing environmental
benefits, projects and programs with multiple benefits shall
be emphasized.
(3) Balance.--The Secretary shall ensure that all elements
of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program need to be completed and
operated cooperatively to maintain the balanced progress in
all Calfed Bay-Delta Program areas.
(4) Existing authorizations for federal agencies.--The
Secretary of the Interior and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in subparagraphs (A) through (J) of paragraph (5), to the
extent authorized under existing law.
(5) Description of activities under existing
authorizations.--
(A) Water storage and water yield.--Activities under this
subparagraph consist of--
(i) Feasibility studies and resolution.--

(I) For purposes of implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Secretary is authorized to undertake all
necessary planning activities and feasibility studies
required for the development of recommendations by the
Secretary to Congress on the construction and implementation
of specific water supply and water yield, ground water
management, and ground water storage projects and
implementation of comprehensive water management planning.
(II) Feasibility studies requirements.--All feasibility
studies completed for storage projects as a result of this
section shall include identification of project benefits and
beneficiaries and a cost allocation plan consistent with the
benefits to be received, for both governmental and non-
governmental entities.
(III) Disapproval resolution.--If the Secretary determines
a project to be feasible, and meets the requirements under
subparagraph (B), the report shall be submitted to Congress.
If Congress does not pass a disapproval resolution of the
feasibility study during the first 120 days before Congress
(not including days on which either the House of
Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day
certain) the project shall be authorized, subject to
appropriations.

(ii) Water supply and water yield study.--The Secretary,
acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and in consultation
with the State, shall conduct a study of available water
supplies and water yield and existing demand and future needs
for water--

(I) within the units of the Central Valley Project;
(II) within the area served by Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors and municipal and
industrial water service contractors; and
(III) within the Bay-Delta solution area.

(iii) Relationship to prior study.--The study under clause
(ii) shall incorporate and revise as necessary the study
required by section 3408(j) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
(iv) Management.--The Secretary shall conduct activities
related to developing and implementing groundwater management
and groundwater storage projects.
(v) Comprehensive water planning.--The Secretary shall
conduct activities related to comprehensive water management
planning.
(vi) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
congressional authorizing committees by not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this title describing
the following:

(I) Water yield and water supply improvements, if any, for
Central Valley Project agricultural water service contractors
and municipal and industrial water service contractors.
(II) All water management actions or projects that would
improve water yield or water supply and that, if taken or
constructed, would balance available water supplies and
existing demand for those contractors and other water users
of the Bay-Delta watershed with due recognition of water
right priorities and environmental needs.
(III) The financial costs of the actions and projects
described under clause (II).
(IV) The beneficiaries of those actions and projects and an
assessment of their willingness to pay the capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs thereof.

(B) Conveyance.--
(i) South delta actions.--In the case of the South Delta,
activities under this clause consist of the following:

(I) The South Delta Improvement Program through actions to
accomplish the following:

(aa) Increase the State Water Project export limit to 8,500
cfs.
(bb) Install permanent, operable barriers in the south
Delta. The Federal Agencies shall cooperate with the State to
accelerate installation of the permanent, operable barriers
in the south Delta, with the intent to complete that
installation not later than the end of fiscal year 2006.
(cc) Increase the State Water Project export to the maximum
capability of 10,300 cfs.

(II) Reduction of agricultural drainage in south Delta
channels, and other actions necessary to minimize the impact
of drainage on drinking water quality.

(III) Design and construction of lower San Joaquin River
floodway improvements.
(IV) Installation and operation of temporary barriers in
the south Delta until fully operable barriers are
constructed.
(V) Actions to protect navigation and local diversions not
adequately protected by temporary barriers.
(VI) Actions to increase pumping shall be accomplished in a
manner consistent with California law protecting--

(aa) deliveries to, costs of, and water suppliers and water
users, including but not limited to, agricultural users, that
have historically relied on water diverted for use in the
Delta; and
(bb) the quality of water for existing municipal,
industrial, and agricultural uses.
(ii) North delta actions.--In the case of the North Delta,
activities under this clause consist of--

(I) evaluation and implementation of improved operational
procedures for the Delta Cross Channel to address fishery and
water quality concerns;
(II) evaluation of a screened through-Delta facility on the
Sacramento River; and
(III) evaluation of lower Mokelumne River floodway
improvements.

(iii) Interties.--Activities under this clause consist of--

(I) evaluation and construction of an intertie between the
State Water Project California Aqueduct and the Central
Valley Project Delta Mendota Canal, near the City of Tracy;
and
(II) assessment of a connection of the Central Valley
Project to the Clifton Court Forebay of the State Water
Project, with a corresponding increase in the screened intake
of the Forebay.

(iv) Program to meet standards.--Prior to increasing export
limits from the Delta for the purposes of conveying water to
south-of-Delta Central Valley Project contractors or
increasing deliveries through an intertie, the Secretary
shall, within one year of the date of enactment of this
title, in consultation with the Governor, develop and
implement a program to meet all existing water quality
standards and objectives for which the CVP has
responsibility. In developing and implementing the program
the the Secretary shall include, to the maximum extent
feasible, the following:

(v) Use of existing funding mechanisms.--In implementing
the Program, the Secretary shall use money collected pursuant
to section 3406(c)(1) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) to acquire from
voluntary sellers water from streams tributary to the San
Joaquin River or other sources for the purposes set forth in
subclauses (I) through (III) of clause (iv).
(vi) Purpose.--The purpose of the authority and direction
provided to the Secretary in clause (iv) is to provide
greater flexibility in meeting the existing water quality
standards and objectives for which the Central Valley Project
has responsibility so as to reduce the demand on water from
New Melones Reservoir used for that purpose and to allow the
Secretary to meet with greater frequency the Secretary's
obligations to Central Valley Project contractors from the
New Melones Project.
(C) Water use efficiency.--Activities under this
subparagraph consist of--
(i) water conservation projects that provide water supply
reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the
Bay-Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for urban and agricultural water
conservation projects;
(iii) water recycling and desalination projects, including
groundwater remediation projects and projects identified in
the Bay Area Water Plan and the Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study and other
projects, giving priority to projects that include
regional solutions to benefit regional water supply and
reliability needs;

(I) The Secretary shall review any feasibility level
studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line
projects that have been completed, whether or not those
studies were prepared with financial assistance from the
Secretary.
(II) The Secretary shall report to the Congress not later
than 90 days after the completion of a feasibility study or
the review of a feasibility study. For the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for
projects as set forth and pursuant to the existing
requirements of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575; title 16) as
amended, and Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-266).

(iv) water measurement and transfer actions;
(v) certification of implementation of best management
practices for urban water conservation; and
(vi) projects identified in the Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, dated April
2001 and authorized by section 1606 of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43

[[Page H5423]]

U.S.C. 390h-4); and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water
Recycling Program described in the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water Recycling Program Recycled Water Master Plan,
dated December 1999 and authorized by section 1611 of the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-9) are determined to be feasible.
(D) Water transfers.--Activities under this subparagraph
consist of--
(i) increasing the availability of existing facilities for
water transfers;
(ii) lowering transaction costs through regulatory
coordination as provided in sections 301 through 302; and
(iii) maintaining a water transfer information
clearinghouse.
(E) Integrated regional water management plans.--Activities
under this subparagraph consist of assisting local and
regional communities in the State in developing and
implementing integrated regional water management plans to
carry out projects and programs that improve water supply
reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and flood
protection, or meet other local and regional needs, in a
manner that is consistent with, and makes a significant
contribution to, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(F) Ecosystem restoration.--
(i) Activities under this subparagraph consist of--

(I) implementation of large-scale restoration projects in
San Francisco Bay and the Delta and its tributaries;
(II) restoration of habitat in the Delta, San Pablo Bay,
and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including tidal wetland and
riparian habitat;
(III) fish screen and fish passage improvement projects;
including the Sacramento River Small Diversion Fish Screen
Program;
(IV) implementation of an invasive species program,
including prevention, control, and eradication;
(V) development and integration of Federal and State
agricultural programs that benefit wildlife into the
Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(VI) financial and technical support for locally-based
collaborative programs to restore habitat while addressing
the concerns of local communities;
(VII) water quality improvement projects to manage and
reduce concentrations of salinity, selenium, mercury,
pesticides, trace metals, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
sediment, and other pollutants;
(VIII) land and water acquisitions to improve habitat and
fish spawning and survival in the Delta and its tributaries;
(IX) integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration,
and levee protection projects;
(X) scientific evaluations and targeted research on Program
activities;
(XI) strategic planning and tracking of Program
performance; and
(XII) preparation of management plans for all properties
acquired, and update current management plans, prior to the
purchase or any contribution to the purchase of any interest
in land for ecosystem.

(ii) A restoration management plan report.--The Secretary
shall submit a restoration management plan report to
Congress, 30 days (not including days on which either the
House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than three calendar days to
a day certain) prior to implementing ecosystem restoration
actions as described under this paragraph. Such plan
reports shall be required for all ecosystem projects,
(including comprehensive projects that are composed of
several components and are to be completed by staged
implementation) exceeding $20,000 in Federal funds. The
Restoration Management Plan required to be submitted under
this paragraph, shall, at a minimum--

(I) be consistent with the goal of fish, wildlife, and
habitat improvement;
(II) be consistent with all applicable Federal and State
laws;
(III) describe the specific goals, objectives, and
opportunities and implementation timeline of the proposed
project. Describe to what extent the proposed project is a
part of a larger, more comprehensive project in the Bay-Delta
watershed;
(IV) describe the administration responsibilities of land
and water areas and associated environmental resources, in
the affected project area including an accounting of all
habitat types. Cost-share arrangements with cooperating
agencies should be included in the report;
(V) describe the resource data and ecological monitoring
data to be collected for the restoration projects and how the
data are to be integrated, streamlined, and designed to
measure the effectiveness and overall trend of ecosystem
health in the Bay-Delta watershed;
(VI) identify various combinations of land and water uses
and resource management practices that are scientifically-
based and meet the purposes of the project. Include a
description of expected benefits of the restoration project
relative to the cost of the project;
(VII) analyze and describe cumulative impacts of project
implementation, including land acquisition, and the
mitigation requirements, subject to conditions described in
clause (iii)(I). Complete appropriate actions to satisfy
requirements of NEPA, CEQA, and other environmental
permitting clearance; and
(VIII) describe an integrated monitoring plan and
measurable criteria, or bio-indicators, to be used for
evaluating cost-effective performance of the project.

(iii) Conditions.--Conditions, if applicable, for projects
and activities under this paragraph, and which are to be
described in the restoration management plan report, are as
follows:

(I) a requirement that before obligating or expending
Federal funds to acquire land, the Secretary shall first
determine that existing Federal land, State land, or other
land acquired for ecosystem restoration with amounts provided
by the United States or the State, to the extent such lands
are available within the Calfed solution area, is not
available for that purpose. If no public land is available
the Secretary, prior to any federal expenditure for private
land acquisitions, shall--

(aa) not convert prime farm land and unique farm land, to
the maximum extent as practicable, as identified by local,
State, or Federal land use inventories, including the Natural
Resources Conservation Service;
(bb) not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use;
and
(cc) not involve other changes in existing environment due
to location and nature of converting farmland to non-farmland
use.

(II) a requirement that in determining whether to acquire
private land for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall--

(aa) conduct appropriate analysis, including cost valuation
to assure that private land acquisitions prioritize easements
and leases over acquisitions by fee title unless easements
and leases are unavailable or unsuitable for the stated
purposes;
(bb) consider and partner with landowners and local
agencies to develop cooperating landowner commitments that
are likely to meet coequal objectives of achieving local
economic and social goals and implementing the ecosystem
restoration goals; and
(cc) consider the potential cumulative impacts of fee
title, easement, or lease acquisition on the local and
regional economies and adjacent land and landowners, of
transferring the property into government ownership, and--
(AA) describe the actions that will be taken, to the
maximum extent practicable, to mitigate any induced damages;
and
(BB) determine and describe the degree to which land
acquired will add value to fish, wildlife, and habitat
purposes.
(iv) Annual ecosystem restoration project summary report.--
The Secretary shall, by no later than December 31 of each
year, submit to Congress an annual report on the use of
financial assistance received under this title. The report
shall highlight progress of project implementation,
effectiveness, monitoring, and accomplishment. The report
will identify and outline the need for amendments or
revisions to the plan to improve the cost-effectiveness of
project implementation.
(G) Watersheds.--Activities under this subparagraph consist
of--
(i) building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds
affecting the Calfed Bay-Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for watershed assessments and
management plans; and
(iii) developing and implementing locally-based watershed
conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
(H) Water quality.--Activities under this subparagraph
consist of--
(i) addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley
to improve downstream water quality (including habitat
restoration projects that reduce drainage and improve water
quality) if--

(I) a plan is in place for monitoring downstream water
quality improvements;
(II) State and local agencies are consulted on the
activities to be funded; and
(III) except that no right, benefit, or privilege is
created as a result of this clause;

(ii) implementation of source control programs in the Delta
and its tributaries;
(iii) developing recommendations through scientific panels
and advisory council processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in Delta water quality
for all uses;
(iv) investing in treatment technology demonstration
projects;
(v) controlling runoff into the California aqueduct, the
Delta-Mendota Canal, and other similar conveyances;
(vi) addressing water quality problems at the North Bay
Aqueduct;
(vii) supporting and participating in the development of
projects to enable San Francisco Area water districts and
water entities in San Joaquin and Sacramento counties to work
cooperatively to address their water quality and supply
reliability issues, including--

(I) connections between aqueducts, water transfers, water
conservation measures, institutional arrangements, and
infrastructure improvements that encourage regional
approaches; and
(II) investigations and studies of available capacity in a
project to deliver water to the East Bay Municipal Utility
District under its contract with the Bureau of Reclamation,
dated July 20, 2001, in order to determine if such capacity
can be used to meet the objectives of this clause;

(viii) development of water quality exchanges and other
programs to make high quality water available for urban and
other users;
(ix) development and implementation of a plan to meet all
water quality standards for which the Federal and State water
projects have responsibility;
(x) development of recommendations through technical panels
and advisory council processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in water quality for
all uses; and
(xi) projects that may meet the framework of the water
quality component of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(I) Science.--Activities under this subparagraph consist
of--
(i) establishing and maintaining an independent science
board, technical panels, and standing boards to provide
oversight and peer review of the Program;
(ii) conducting expert evaluations and scientific
assessments of all Program elements;

[[Page H5424]]

(iii) coordinating existing monitoring and scientific
research programs;
(iv) developing and implementing adaptive management
experiments to test, refine, and improve scientific
understandings;
(v) establishing performance measures, and monitoring and
evaluating the performance of all Program elements; and
(vi) preparing an annual science report.
(J) Diversification of water supplies.--Activities under
this subparagraph consist of actions to diversify sources of
level 2 refuge supplies and modes of delivery to refuges.
(6) New and expanded authorizations for federal agencies.--
The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies described
in the Record of Decision are authorized to carry out the
activities described in paragraph (7) during each of fiscal
years 2005 through 2008, in coordination with the Bay-Delta
Authority.
(7) Description of activities under new and expanded
authorizations.--
(A) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 110, not more than $184,000,000
may be expended for the following:
(i) Feasibility studies, evaluation, and implementation of
the San Luis Reservoir lowpoint improvement project.
(ii) Feasibility studies and actions at Franks Tract to
improve water quality in the Delta.
(iii) Feasibility studies and design of fish screen and
intake facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy
Pumping Plant facilities.
(iv) Design and construction of the relocation of drinking
water intake facilities to Delta water users. The Secretary
shall coordinate actions for relocating intake facilities on
a time schedule consistent with subparagraph (5)(B)(i)(I)(bb)
or other actions necessary to offset the degradation of
drinking water quality in the Delta due to the South Delta
Improvement Program.
(v) In addition to the other authorizations granted to the
Secretary by this title, the Secretary shall acquire water
from willing sellers and undertake other actions designed to
decrease releases from New Melones Reservoir for meeting
water quality standards and flow objectives for which the
Central Valley Project has responsibility in order to meet
allocations to Central Valley Project contractors from the
New Melones Project. Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (7)(A), not more than $5,260,000
may be expended for this purpose.
(B) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated under section 110, not more than
$90,000,000 may be expended for implementation of the
Environmental Water Account provided that such expenditures
shall be considered a nonreimbursable Federal expenditure. In
order to reduce the use of New Melones reservoir as a source
of water to meet water quality standards, the Secretary
may use the Environmental Water Account to purchase water
to provide flow for fisheries, to improve water quality in
the San Joaquin river and Delta.
(C) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 110, not more than $90,000,000 may
be expended for--
(i) reconstructing Delta levees to a base level of
protection;
(ii) enhancing the stability of levees that have particular
importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special
Improvement Projects program;
(iii) developing best management practices to control and
reverse land subsidence on Delta islands;
(iv) refining the Delta Emergency Plan;
(v) developing a Delta Risk Management Strategy after
assessing the consequences of Delta levee failure from
floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes;
(vi) developing a strategy for reuse of dredged materials
on Delta islands;
(vii) evaluating, and where appropriate, rehabilitating the
Suisun Marsh levees; and
(viii) not more than $2,000,000 may be expended for
integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration, and levee
protection projects, including design and construction of
lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne River floodway
improvements and other projects under the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Comprehensive Study.
(D) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 110,
not more than $25,000,000 may be expended by the Secretary or
the other heads of Federal agencies, either directly or
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with
agencies of the State, for--
(i) program support;
(ii) program-wide tracking of schedules, finances, and
performance;
(iii) multiagency oversight and coordination of Program
activities to ensure Program balance and integration;
(iv) development of interagency cross-cut budgets and a
comprehensive finance plan to allocate costs in accordance
with the beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of
Decision;
(v) coordination of public outreach and involvement,
including tribal, environmental justice, and public advisory
activities in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
(vi) development of Annual Reports.

SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT.

(a) Coordination.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Federal agencies shall coordinate their
activities with the State agencies.
(b) Public Participation.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program, the Federal agencies shall cooperate with
local and tribal governments and the public through an
advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and other appropriate
means, to seek input on Program elements such as planning,
design, technical assistance, and development of peer review
science programs.
(c) Science.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program,
the Federal agencies shall seek to ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, that--
(1) all major aspects of implementing the Program are
subjected to credible and objective scientific review; and
(2) major decisions are based upon the best available
scientific information.
(d) Environmental Justice.--The Federal agencies and State
agencies, consistent with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR Fed.
Reg. 7629), should continue to collaborate to--
(1) develop a comprehensive environmental justice workplan
for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program; and
(2) fulfill the commitment to addressing environmental
justice challenges referred to in the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program Environmental Justice Workplan, dated December 13,
2000.
(e) Land Acquisition.--Federal funds appropriated by
Congress specifically for implementation of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program may be used to acquire fee title to land only
where consistent with the Record of Decision and section
103(b)(5)(F)(iii).
(f) Agencies' Discretion.--This title shall not affect the
discretion of any of the Federal agencies or the State
agencies or the authority granted to any of the Federal
agencies or State agencies by any other Federal or State law.
(g) Status Reports.--The Secretary shall report, quarterly
to Congress, on the progress in achieving the water supply
targets as described in Section 2.2.4 of the Record of
Decision, the environmental water account requirements as
described in Section 2.2.7, and the water quality targets as
described in Section 2.2.9, and any pending actions that may
affect the ability of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program to achieve
those targets and requirements.

SEC. 105. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 15 of each year,
the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall submit
to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating Committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report
that--
(A) describes the status of implementation of all
components of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program;
(B) sets forth any written determination resulting from the
review required under subsection (b); and
(C) includes any revised schedule prepared under subsection
(b).
(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall describe--
(A) the progress of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program in meeting
the implementation schedule for the Program in a manner
consistent with the Record of Decision;
(B) the status of implementation of all components of the
Program;
(C) expenditures in the past fiscal year for implementing
the Program;
(D) accomplishments during the past fiscal year in
achieving the objectives of additional and improved--
(i) water storage, including water yield;
(ii) water quality;
(iii) water use efficiency;
(iv) ecosystem restoration;
(v) watershed management;
(vi) levee system integrity;
(vii) water transfers;
(viii) water conveyance; and
(ix) water supply reliability;
(E) program goals, current schedules, and relevant
financing agreements;
(F) progress on--
(i) storage projects;
(ii) conveyance improvements;
(iii) levee improvements;
(iv) water quality projects; and
(v) water use efficiency programs;
(G) completion of key projects and milestones identified in
the Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(H) development and implementation of local programs for
watershed conservation and restoration;
(I) progress in improving water supply reliability and
implementing the Environmental Water Account;
(J) achievement of commitments under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and endangered species
law of the State;
(K) implementation of a comprehensive science program;
(L) progress toward acquisition of the Federal and State
permits (including permits under section 404(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a))) for
implementation of projects in all identified Program areas;
(M) progress in achieving benefits in all geographic
regions covered by the Program;
(N) legislative action on--
(i) water transfer;
(ii) groundwater management;
(iii) water use efficiency; and
(iv) governance issues;
(O) the status of complementary actions;
(P) the status of mitigation measures; and
(Q) revisions to funding commitments and Program
responsibilities.
(b) Annual Review of Progress and Balance.--
(1) In general.--Not later than November 15 of each year,
the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall review
progress in implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program based
on--
(A) consistency with the Record of Decision; and

[[Page H5425]]

(B) balance in achieving the goals and objectives of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(2) Revised schedule.--If, at the conclusion of each such
annual review or if a timely annual review is not undertaken,
the Secretary, or the Governor, determine in writing that
either the Program implementation schedule has not been
substantially adhered to, or that balanced progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program is not
occurring, the Secretary, in coordination with the Governor
and the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, shall prepare a
revised schedule to achieve balanced progress in all Calfed
Bay-Delta Program elements consistent with the the Record of
Decision.
(c) Feasibility Studies.--Any feasibility studies completed
as a result of this title shall include identification of
project benefits and a cost allocation plan consistent with
the beneficiaries pay provisions of the Record of Decision.

SEC. 106. CROSSCUT BUDGET.

(a) In General.--The budget of the President shall include
requests for the appropriate level of funding for each of the
Federal agencies to carry out the responsibilities of the
Federal agency under the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(b) Requests by Federal Agencies.--The funds shall be
requested for the Federal agency with authority and
programmatic responsibility for the obligation of the funds,
in accordance with paragraphs (2) through (5) of section
103(b).
(c) Report.--At the time of submission of the budget of the
President to Congress, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in coordination with the Governor,
shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
financial report certified by the Secretary containing--
(1) an interagency budget crosscut report that--
(A) displays the budget proposed, including any interagency
or intra-agency transfer, for each of the Federal agencies to
carry out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for the upcoming
fiscal year, separately showing funding requested under both
pre-existing authorities and under the new authorities
granted by this title; and
(B) identifies all expenditures since 2000 by the Federal
and State governments to achieve the objectives of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program;
(2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and
obligated by all Federal agencies and State agencies
responsible for implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
during the previous fiscal year;
(3) a budget for the proposed projects (including a
description of the project, authorization level, and project
status) to be carried out in the upcoming fiscal year with
the Federal portion of funds for activities under section
103(b); and
(4) a listing of all projects to be undertaken in the
upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion of funds for
activities under section 103(b).

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Federal share of the cost of
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years
2005 through 2008 in the aggregate, as set forth in the
Record of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
(b) Calfed Bay-Delta Program Beneficiaries.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that all
beneficiaries, including the environment, shall pay for
benefits received from all projects or activities carried out
under the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. This requirement shall
not be limited to storage and conveyance projects and shall
be implemented so as to encourage integrated resource
planning.

SEC. 108. USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND FUNDS.

(a) Generally.--The heads of the Federal agencies shall use
the authority under existing authorities identified by the
Secretary to carry out the purposes of this title.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and annual thereafter, the Secretary,
in consultation with the heads of the Federal agencies, shall
transmit to Congress a report that describes the following:
(1) A list of all existing authorities, including the
authorities listed in subsection (a), under which the
Secretary or the heads of the Federal agencies may carry out
the purposes of this title.
(2) A list of funds authorized in the previous fiscal year
for the authorities listed under paragraph (1).
(3) A list of the projects carried out with the funds
listed in paragraph (2) and the amount of funds obligated and
expended for each project.

SEC. 109. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

Nothing in this title--
(1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an
interstate compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated
share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water,
whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or
final judicial allocations;
(3) preempts or modifies any State or Federal law or
interstate compact governing water quality or disposal; or
(4) confers on any non-federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource.

SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
and the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal
share of the cost of carrying out the new and expanded
authorities described in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section
103(b), $389,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2008, to remain available until expended.

TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY COORDINATION OFFICES

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES.

For projects authorized by this Act and located within the
State of California, the Secretary shall establish a
centralized office in Sacramento, California, for the use of
all Federal agencies and State agencies that are or will be
involved in issuing permits and preparing environmental
documentation for such projects. The Secretary may, at the
request of the Governor of any Reclamation State, establish
additional centralized offices for the use of all Federal
agencies and State agencies that are or will be involved in
issuing permits and preparing environmental documentation for
projects authorized by this Act, or under any other
authorized Act, and located within such States.

SEC. 202. ACCEPTANCE AND EXPENDITURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to coordinate the
preparation and review of permit applications and the
preparation of environmental documentation for all projects
authorized by this Act, or any other authorized Act, and to
offset the Federal costs of processing such permit
applications and environmental documentation. The Secretary
shall allocate funds received under this section among
Federal agencies with responsibility for the project under
consideration and shall reimburse those agencies in
accordance with the costs such agencies incur in processing
permit applications and preparing environmental
documentation.
(b) Protection of Impartial Decisionmaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary and the heads of Federal
agencies receiving funds under this section shall ensure that
the use of the funds accepted under this section will not
impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the issuance
of permits or preparation of environmental documentation,
either substantively or procedurally, or diminish, modify, or
otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory authorities of
such agencies.

TITLE III--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

SEC. 301. RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing rural water systems
in coordination with other Federal agencies with rural water
programs, and in cooperation with non-Federal project
entities.
(b) Requirements.--The study referred to in subsection (a)
shall consider each of the following:
(1) Appraisal investigations.
(2) Feasibility studies.
(3) Environmental reports.
(4) Cost sharing responsibilities.
(5) Responsibility for operation and maintenance.
(c) Criteria.--As part of the study referred to in
subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop criteria for
determining which projects are eligible for participation in
the study referred to under this section.
(d) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress the study developed under this section.
(e) Reclamation States.--The program established by this
section shall be limited to Reclamation States.

TITLE IV--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM

SEC. 401. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of reclaiming the Salton Sea.
(b) Requirements.--The study referred to in subsection (a)
shall consider each of the following:
(1) Appraisal investigations.
(2) Feasibility studies.
(3) Environmental Reports.
(4) Cost sharing responsibilities.
(5) Responsibility for operation and maintenance.
(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress the study developed under this section no later than
1 year after the date of enactment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in the report, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert) or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be
debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes of debate on
the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

General Leave

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H. R. 2828.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is a
giant step forward in resolving California's water supply problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from

[[Page H5426]]

California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am pleased today to support the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), on this historic legislation.
For over 10 years we have been trying to move this process forward to
develop a comprehensive water plan to benefit all of California, and
this legislation does just that.
This legislation addresses the water needs of California by bringing
adversaries together for the first time on many of these issues.
For over 30 years, sides have not resolved the Sacramento/San Joaquin
Bay-Delta water quality issues. This legislation includes a historic
agreement between these parties to once and for all improve water
quality by addressing many concerns in the Delta and its tributaries.
By improving water quality, everybody benefits. Improved water
quality in the Delta means better drinking water for our cities, better
water for our farmers, and better water quality for our fish. This bill
provides the Secretary with a variety of tools to address this very
serious issue, including the purchase of water from voluntary sellers
to meet water quality standards. It also gives direction for the
implementation of an operational plan for the New Melones Reservoir
that will rely on the best available science and coordinate releases to
benefit both the fisheries and the water quality for municipal and
agricultural users.
This bill increases California's water supply through water
reclamation and recycling projects, water storage, better operation,
and the coordination of Federal and State projects, and the development
of water conservation projects that benefit all of California. With an
ever-increasing demand for water in the State of California, there is a
need to move all of the projects of every type forward quickly and
efficiently, and this bill does that.
I again want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert) on the great work that he did on this bill, and the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for working with her
subcommittee chairman to make this work. I appreciate all that she put
in to make this a good bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman and
the sponsor of H.R. 2828, for his tireless work to keep the CALFED
authorization moving forward, and also the gentleman from California
(Chairman Pombo) for his unwavering support.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I have had
the privilege of working with the chairman on many water issues. His
commitment to a fair and open legislative process is indeed very
commendable.
The State of California needs a more reliable water supply; we can
all agree on that. We now face, like many other States, severe
restrictions specifically on the use of the Colorado River, and we must
reduce our water use to meet the terms of the Colorado River Compact.
The gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) and others on our
committee are well aware of my strong support for water recycling,
desalinization, and groundwater cleanup projects. With H.R. 2828, the
gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) has raised the importance
of these projects to unprecedented levels. He deserves our combined
thanks and our support for his commitment.
Efficient water use, water recycling, ground water treatment, new
storage, and desalinization projects are all critically important if we
in Southern California are to succeed in our effort to cut back our use
of the Colorado River. With increased emphasis on using water more
efficiently, we can increase our available water supply by more than
half a million acre feet of water per year, and we can do it cheaply
and quickly.
Mr. Speaker, by working together, we have taken a huge step forward
towards authorizing the CALFED program. The gentlemen from California
(Chairman Pombo) and (Chairman Calvert) and their staffs have
cooperated with us fully, and we have together made many improvements
to this legislation. I look forward to continuing our progress on
CALFED as we move this bill towards the White House. I urge all of my
Democratic and Republican colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert). Putting this bill together has been very
difficult and has taken a number of years. He and his staff and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and his staff have done an
outstanding job.
I remember when CALFED was first unleashed, and it was I think in
1996, and it was done in an appropriations bill. So, really, this is
the first proper authorization that we have actually had, and it has
been a long time in coming.
It has been mentioned that this bill brings balance between the
ecological work that has been done, which has received almost all of
the focus and all of the funding, and balance for water yield. Yield
means water that is available in critically dry years, that is reliably
available; and this bill emphasizes that and creates studies and
commences processes that will produce what is needed to meet the
growing needs of our State.
This bill also subjects to accountability everything that is going on
in CALFED. These projects have been going on for nearly 10 years; and
yet there has been very little accountability.

{time} 1200

Now we will have the accountability that we need so that the Congress
can assess what is working and what is not, and so that Congress can
also assure that we are meeting all the objectives of CALFED, not just
some.
I also wish to draw attention to the limitation on the water use fees
that are contained in the report accompanying this bill that provides
that only direct beneficiaries of projects benefiting the Bay Delta
region will be subject to the beneficiary pays provision. This means
that upstream water users who participate in projects to improve the
region are not subject to fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the
project. In addition, this legislation does not authorize the creation
of a broad-based fee or tax for water users. Any fee or tax that is
developed will be directly proportional to the benefit received from
specific projects authorized by the program.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and appreciate the cooperation we
have had. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for
her work and her staff and commend everyone for finally being able to
bring this great package together. Everyone who cares about water and
the future in California should be supporting this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the CALFED process is an unprecedented
undertaking and one that is crucial to the water security of all people
in California, both northern and southern, urban and rural. That is why
we need a balanced reauthorization bill that respects the hard work
done over the past years by all CALFED stakeholders in the blueprint
record of decision agreed upon in 2000.
I fear that H.R. 2828 does not achieve the delicate balance necessary
because of the preauthorization of the dam projects that are
controversial in their communities and among the stakeholders. So I
would urge that H.R. 2828 be opposed and that the motion to recommit
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that would correct the
preauthorization provision be supported.
However, I do want to give credit to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano) and to all who have worked on this, because I am
confident that once we get through this process in working with our
Senators who have

[[Page H5427]]

a parallel effort that avoids the flaw in this bill, that we will end
up with a bill that all of us support. It is important that the CALFED
process move forward.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I make a statement about this bill, I want to
also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) for all her great work on this bill. She has spent many
hours and days traveling across the State of California. I think we
probably were in most congressional districts throughout California as
this process took place. Certainly I thank her for her great work in
this legislation.
This bill represents great progress in helping solve the water
problems of the west by making California more self-reliant and
carefully using its own water supply. We have come a long way over the
last few years. The Subcommittee on Water and Power conducted three
field hearings in California, a legislative hearing, two mark-ups, and
too many meetings to count to get where we are today.
Individually, many of the members of our committee have helped to
shepherd often contentious quantification settlement agreements, for
instance, that was delayed, but we finally came to a decisive
conclusion. My friends in the upper-lower basin States should know that
this bill today is another positive step in California weaning itself
from historically overdrafting the Colorado River.
As we have found with the plumbing in California's water system,
everything in the world of water is related to everything else. Thus,
achievements like the quantification settlement agreement helped us
conclude the carefully balanced agreement on CALFED that we have before
us today. Water is not and should not be a partisan issue. I worked
constructively with the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Pombo), Senator Feinstein, as I mentioned, the
ranking Democratic member; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza); of course, the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller); and the full committee ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and many, many more to make
sure this bill before us is a consensus that I believe that it is.
I am proud to have many Democratic members of the Committee on
Resources supporting this bill. The original intent of CALFED was to
provide balance to a complex water delivery system, to ensure that
everybody gets better together. That is what this bill does. H.R. 2828
simply and truly means that the environment, recreation, drinking
water, agriculture and industries gets better together.
As our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo) said, This bill makes historic strides in water quality
improvements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Improved water
quality helps everyone across the board. We have also created new water
supplies for southern California through my friend, the gentlewoman
from California's (Mrs. Napolitano) water recycling amendment, and we
enhanced surface storage to improve water quality for families in our
colleagues' district in the Bay area and beyond as evidenced by the
support of such water districts as the Northern California Water
District, Contra Costa Water District, Central Contra Water District
and many others.
We have created a right to know provision by making Federal agencies
report how they will spend the money. Congress and the American
taxpayer deserve government accountability and this bill provides it.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House
and the Senate to bring ultimate resolution to this bipartisan effort.
Our bill includes and supports a diverse approach to solving our water
problems, including conservation, reclamation, desalinization,
conjunctive use, ground water storage and, of course, surface storage
options that have been carefully studied and negotiated down to the
bare minimum.
We have made significant progress and we can see the light at the end
of the tunnel. With today's vote, we will pass this bill and we will
make that light shine even brighter. I urge support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the terrific work they have done in
crafting this legislation.
Obviously, one of the greatest challenges we face in California and,
indeed, the entire west, is how do we provide adequate water for all of
our needs, whether they be consumptive needs, as well as the
environment. And this legislation is a step forward to providing
greater certainty that in the future we will have the water resources
that are needed for the expanding population. We will have the water
resources that are needed for our agriculture sector as well as our
industrial sector. Most importantly, it also ensures that we are going
to provide the protection that our environment needs.
This legislation is clearly something that is going to meet the needs
of all the citizens of California. And while there are some of our
colleagues in California that do not think this is a perfect piece of
legislation, I would agree with them that it might not be perfect but
it would be foolhardy for us to not allow this legislation to move
forward so that we could eventually see a compromise and a final
consensus developed that will, in fact, contribute to the needs of
California.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828, the Water
Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act and commend the
leadership of my subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert and Ranking Member
Grace Napolitano for bringing this important legislation to its place
on the floor today.
I also want to recognize the very significant role that the senior
Senator from California has played in developing and moving a
counterpart bill in the Senate on a parallel track, paving the way for
a bill to become law later this year.
This bipartisan water bill has been long in the making. Federal
authorization for funding the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, commonly
referred to as CALFED, expired in 2000--the same year that a consortium
of Federal and State agencies issued a Record of Decision (ROD) setting
forth a 30-year plan for CALFED.
Since 2000, various versions of reauthorizing legislation have been
under consideration by the Congress. Until today, however, none of the
earlier versions was able to reach the House floor.
The fact that today we finally have a bipartisan CALFED bill on the
House floor reflects the long and arduous process of seeking input,
balancing interests and making compromises. Many, many stakeholders
were consulted in the development of this bill, including
representatives of agricultural, urban, environmental, fishery, and
business interests. None of them are likely to say that this is the
``perfect'' bill from their individual perspectives. But the bill we
now have before us represents a constructive effort to forge a
thoughtful and balanced approach to the management of California's
water supplies. It deserves our support today.
A sound bill when it was introduced last year, H.R. 2828 improved
when it was marked up by the Resources Committee on May 5, and several
provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill were incorporated. Additional
refinements to the legislative language have been included in today's
managers' amendment, enhancing the prospects for an expeditious
conference with the Senate and enactment this year.
Many in this body are aware of the legal conflicts and tensions that
have evolved over the years on California water issues. The intent of
this bill is to reduce those conflicts and tensions by providing
guidance and authority for improving water supply reliability and water
quality, while at the same time enhancing the environment. The bill
recognizes the CALFED 2000 Record of Decision as the framework for
implementing the program, and ensures that implementation moves ahead
on a balanced basis.

There are many important provisions in the bill. I will comment on
only a few of them.
For those of us in the Central Valley of California, this bill
provides important assurances of improved conveyance of water supplies
through the Delta. It authorizes evaluation and construction of much-
needed new barriers and interties. It also recognizes the importance of

[[Page H5428]]

improving drainage in south Delta channels to minimize impact on
drinking water quality. It thus requires implementation of a program to
meet water quality standards in the San Joaquin River and the Delta
prior to increased pumping or deliveries.
The bill is designed to give the Secretary more flexibility in
meeting water quality standards in the Delta while reducing the
reliance on the New Melones Project for meeting water quality and fish
flows standards. To help meet this goal, the Secretary is authorized to
use a variety of tools, including the purchase of water from willing
sellers on the tributaries of the San Joaquin River. The legislation
further allows the Secretary to use the CVP Restoration Fund to help
pay for these water purchases and other designated actions.
It is important to recognize that water purchases and the use of the
Restoration Fund monies are merely tools that the Secretary may use to
achieve a goal. They are not mandates that supercede existing water
rights or water supply contracts or replace existing Restoration Fund
priorities. The Program to Meet Standards created by H.R. 2828 does not
give the Secretary any new authority to acquire or re-allocate water
from anyone but willing sellers.
On another issue--that of cost allocation--the Committee report on
H.R. 2828 makes clear that the costs of implementing the CALFED program
are to be allocated in a way that relates directly to benefits to be
received. This ``beneficiaries pay'' principle precludes the imposition
of water-use fee, tax or surcharge that would force water agencies or
individuals to pay for CALFED projects or programs from which they do
not benefit. Nothing in this legislation provides the basis for the
imposition of such a fee or tax.
Some critics of this bill are claiming that it cedes congressional
authority over water storage projects. I wish to make it clear that
such a claim is not true.
The bill does give the Secretary blanket authority under the
framework of the CALFED program to undertake feasibility studies for
water storage projects. Such an authorization makes sense, given the
fact that a Record of Decision for the CALFED program has already been
issued and the extensive Federal-State-stakeholder consultation process
within CALFED itself provides for due deliberation of project
proposals.

If as a result of a specific feasibility study, the Secretary
determines that a particular project is indeed feasible, the Secretary
cannot simply move ahead, but first must submit a report to Congress
identifying project benefits and beneficiaries and a cost allocation
plan. Congress then has 120 legislative days--not calendar days, but
legislative days--to consider the report and recommendation, and pass a
disapproval resolution if we disagree with the Secretary's
recommendation. Such a disapproval resolution procedure, as we all
know, is not an uncommon procedure for congressional oversight of
proposed administration actions. In addition to the 120-day layover
period, congressional approval through the enactment of appropriations
for the project must occur. We all know this is no small step.
So the bill does delegate more authority to the Secretary at the
beginning of the feasibility process, enabling proposals to be explored
and developed on an expeditious basis, but still retains the ultimate
congressional authority to stop any particular water storage project as
well as to determine its appropriations, if any. This process is thus a
bit streamlined from the existing procedures for water storage
projects. However, it provides adequate safeguards for congressional
prerogatives while enhancing the expeditious consideration of worthy
project proposals.
Before closing, I wish to thank the staff of the Water and Power
Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, for their hard work and
cooperation in helping us arrive to this point today. Their openness
and professionalism are deeply appreciated by me and my staff.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is long overdue. If we are
to have any chance of CALFED being reauthorized in this session of
Congress, we must pass this bill today and forward it to the Senate for
its consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote
``aye.''
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, in California, wine is for drinking and
water is for fighting. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) have done a Herculean job task of putting
together all the interests in California in a water bill that is
supported by just about every interest group out there, and that was an
incredible task. That is why I am a proud co-sponsor and supporter of
H.R. 2828.
The central valley of California comprises the largest agriculture
producing county in the Nation, where over 250 of California's crops
are grown. With its fertile soil and temperate climate, the valley
produces 8 percent of the ag output of the United States on less than 1
percent of the Nation's total farmland. Valley farmers alone grow
nearly half the fresh fruits and vegetables grown in the entire Nation.
The most fundamental challenge facing California's Central Valley is
assuring adequate long term supplies of water to meet the demands of
the agriculture, environmental and urban water needs. A dependable and
affordable water supply is necessary to meet the long term needs of the
State. The key to providing this water supply is adequate storage
facilities to hold water in times of surplus for use during water
shortages.
With H.R. 2828, California will have a more reliable and efficient
water supply, and water throughout the west will be more stable because
California will have the tools necessary to provide for its own water.
Specifically, among other projects, H.R. 2828 allows for the continued
storage studies in the Upper San Joaquin River and will provide
critical water storage in the region that I represent.
The legislation also makes progress towards balance in CALFED Bay
Delta program by underscoring the need for new surface storage
facilities, as well as ensuring improved water quality and providing
continued support for ecosystem restoration activities.
There are a few provisions which I would like to clarify in the
Record if I may. The first of these pertains to CALFED fees. H.R. 2828
sanctions the principle of beneficiary pays, and I support this
standard. This means exactly what it says. Those who benefit from a
CALFED project or program should pay for what they receive. It also
means that those who do not benefit from CALFED programs and projects
should not have to pay for the fees.
The legislation does not authorize or impose water diversion fees,
charges or taxes on CALFED beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Such
charges go against the beneficiaries pay principle of this bill and the
CALFED record of decision, and this is the clear intention of the House
Committee on Resources when it reported H.R. 2828.
The second issue I would like to clarify is the new program to meet
standards which was created to give added flexibility to the Secretary
of the Interior to meet existing water quality standard in the Delta.
For the record, I wanted to state that nothing in H.R. 2828 requires
water users in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries to provide
more water or more money than they are currently providing to meet
existing water quality standards and fishery objectives. Nothing in the
legislation authorizes the Secretary to make involuntary acquisitions
of water from the central valley project contractors or water rights
holders on the tributaries of the San Joaquin.
Finally, nothing in the bill gives the program to meet standards a
higher priority to receive funding for the restoration fund than
existing programs and projects supported by the fund.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the
passage of H.R. 2828.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2828, the Water
Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act known as the
CALFED, a historical giant step in improving the quantity and quality
of water in California.
CALFED is a State and Federal partnership formed to increase water
storage and improve water reliability. It is crucial to the future of
the home of the State of California. Without clean water or enough
water, there can be no development of jobs and housing, I state no
development of jobs and housing. And without clean water, my children,
my grandchildren or any child cannot enjoy normal, healthy lives.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. I commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). I commend the minority leader,
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). I am also proud that
this legislation includes the environmental justice language that I
promoted. This

[[Page H5429]]

bill states that environmental justice a goal of CALFED, making sure
that everyone, regardless of race or income deserves the same
protections for environment and health hazards.
I recommend and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
CALFED provides a means to respond to rapid population growths,
especially in my area, in my district. California deserves to have a
good quality of water and a good quantity of water. And it will help
the State of California improve.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to again extend congratulations, as I
did earlier, to my colleagues. I have lived in California since I was a
freshman in college since 1971. I remember very vividly during the past
3 decades the constant struggle that has gone on between north and
south over this issue of water, the battles over the Colorado River
water. And this notion of coming to some kind of reconciliation on a
partnership between the State of California and the Federal Government
is something that many believed could never ever happen.
Because of the leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), working under the gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) as chairman of the Committee on Resources, and closely with
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), and I have seen so
many Californians involved in this debate here on the House floor. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) was speaking earlier, and I
saw the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) talking, and I know we
have a couple of people in our delegation who are not on board.
But the fact of the matter is we have been able to, I believe, bring
together an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans from
California to deal with this very important and pressing need.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, there are 35 million people in our State. And
I know that there are a lot of people around here who are not as crazy
about California as those of us who represent it, but the fact of the
matter is, California, is the largest State in our union, and virtually
everyone around the country has some kind of tie to California.

{time} 1215

So it is important for us to, as a body and as a government, address
this very important need; and so I thank, again, my friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), who has worked so
tirelessly. I was very honored to be at a water treatment facility that
we have had as we worked together to deal with groundwater
contamination in the area that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) and I represent with the discovery of per chlorate, which
has created very serious problems. We have come together in a
bipartisan way to address water issues, and passage of this legislation
is going to be a great testament to the bipartisanship of our
delegation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge also
the great work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the
chairman, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the
ranking member, for their tireless efforts in bringing about a much-
needed piece of legislation. These two leaders have done a yeoman's job
for us in bringing H.R. 2828, and they have come to my district many
times to hold hearings on this issue of water.
I would like to specifically thank the chairman and the ranking
member for including the strong water use efficiency section in H.R.
2828. This section will meet my community's strong demand for water
supply and reliability, not by taking more water from the Bay-Delta
ecosystem, not taking more water from the Colorado River in our
neighboring States, but from recycling and cleaning up Southern
California's existing water supply and investing in sea water
desalination projects.
H.R. 2828 specifically clarifies that in addition to recycling and
desalination projects, groundwater cleanup projects for contaminants
such as per chlorate, nitrates, and volatile organic compounds will
qualify for CALFED program funding.
Continued Federal investment in desalination technology, such as the
one in Long Beach, will verify and further develop energy savings and
optimize the process so that it can be enlarged and duplicated
throughout the United States.
The Long Beach Water Department's desalination pilot plant is on the
cutting edge, and I am looking forward to seeing this technology fully
developed.
Again, I support and commend these two for their outstanding work.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my short time to
address all those Members of the House of Representatives who are not
from California. They do create a majority in this body after all.
We have a rather unique situation with the chairman of the full
committee from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee from
California, and the chairman of the subcommittee from California; but
that is not what is important.
What is important for my colleagues not from California to understand
is this is a State of more than 30 million people that has a
significant impact on the economy of the United States and, frankly,
the quality of life in the United States.
In the 1930s, the Federal Government began developing the water
resources on the east side of California. Californians in the 1960s
took the responsibility on themselves to build a multi-billion dollar
water project on the west side of California.
They have been discussing CALFED. The State and the Federal
Government water projects have never been coordinated, and the
resources of California have never been maximized for the benefit both
of the environment and the economy and individuals.
Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano),
talked about the fact that as other States, Arizona and others in the
area of the Colorado River, have gained population, California is using
a source of water that we have relied on for a long time. This is the
first time that we have not had a partisan fight; that we are not going
to have a regional fight; and that California has come together to
begin to solve the water problems of the largest State in the Union.
I would ask my colleagues, if they are not from California, witness
the bipartisanship, witness finally in California the understanding
that north and south need to work together, and please, give us a
strong vote on this legislation which is important to California and
important to the United States.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise in opposition to the
bill as it currently is constructed; and as a Californian, I fully
understand the urgent need to pass legislation to reauthorize CALFED;
but if we fail to reauthorize this program, we will sacrifice millions
of dollars scheduled to go to important water infrastructure projects.
But in its current form, this legislation will jeopardize the delicate
balance of water interests in California that we have worked so hard to
achieve and make it more difficult for us to reauthorize CALFED.
Instead of codifying the Record of Decision that was agreed to in the
CALFED process, this bill disrupts the balance that it created. This
bill sets the dangerous precedent of authorizing large-scale projects
before they have undergone comprehensive review and analysis. The
preauthorization language is bad policy and bad politics.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I will offer a motion to recommit this
bill

[[Page H5430]]

that would strip the preauthorization language from the legislation. I
urge my colleagues to support the motion so that we can pass a CALFED
bill this year and get it signed by the President.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself what time I may consume for
a short comment.
Congressional approval of water projects from planning through
construction is not a new concept. The Corps of Engineers has authority
through the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, to implement
projects following a favorable Chief's, or some people call it
feasibility, report.
Through WRDA, Congress approves projects from planning through
construction, subject to the conditions stated in a favorable Chief's
report. Numerous examples of the corps' projects can be found in WRDA
1996, WRDA 1999, and WRDA 2000 which authorize construction following a
favorable Chief's report.
In the last three WRDAs, over 50 projects were approved from planning
through construction, with conditional authorization subject to a
favorable Chief's report. New projects were conditionally authorized,
and there were additional project modifications that were conditionally
authorized.
WRDA projects conditionally authorized included the Bel Marin Keys
Unit, California, well over $100 million; Kill Van Kull, New York and
New Jersey navigation project, $325 million authorization to $750
million; the Savannah Harbor Expansion navigation project $230 million,
and I can go on and on and on.
Are my colleagues saying we should replace the 120-day congressional
authorization which is in the present bill with extensively used WRDA
language that Congress has accepted and continues to support?
H.R. 2828 includes provisions that approve water recycling projects
from planning through construction which was proposed by the Southern
California Democrats. By the way, these four projects that are in this
bill are in the Record of Decision which has been negotiated over the
years, as all my friends know, and a very difficult negotiation, to
bring this process of CALFED in a balanced manner forward.
So I would say to my colleagues, this is nothing new. People would
like to see these projects built if, in fact, they are feasible; and
all the environmental processes, NEPA, CEPA, Endangered Species Act, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera, must be met to make sure that these
projects are viable and feasible under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding time to me, and I want to commend her for her work on this
legislation, also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for
all of his work on this legislation.
Regretfully, I must oppose this legislation because I think at the
moment, as this is currently drafted, this legislation fails to address
what is, I believe, a fatal defect. Not only do I think it will delay
the consideration of this legislation for a successful passage through
the Congress, I also believe that it has a very real possibility of
throwing much of this legislation back into the court, something we are
trying to avoid with the CALFED process, and that is, the
preauthorization of future California water projects.
I appreciate what the gentleman said about WRDA; but I think if he
takes a close look at WRDA he will find, in fact, it is a much
different process than what we envision here. In fact, the language of
this legislation says that virtually any water project or water supply
or water yield can move into construction after a feasibility study. It
does not say a favorable report, as it says in the WRDA or the Chief's.
It simply says if you have the feasibility study, you can move on; and
I think what, in fact, we will see is that those people who are critics
of many of the projects that all of us support in this legislation will
start to raise Cain at the local level about the process being rigged.
They will take this to the courts, take this to the bow, and we will
go through a process that is just going to be unacceptable in terms of
meeting the goals that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) have for this
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would inform the
House that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) has 21
minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter
into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
I rise in support, full support and strong support, of H.R. 2828. I
think maximizing the use of our limited water resources in California
is an issue that is close to my Orange County district, and it is close
to me.
In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and I are
the sponsors of a bill, H.R. 1156, which would allow Orange County to
complete its revolutionary Groundwater Replenishment System. That
system would create a new water supply of 72,000 acre feet per year and
serve 2.3 million residents of the north and central portion of Orange
County.
The bill would increase the authorized Federal share for this project
from $20 million to $80 million, and I would like to inquire if the
Chairman continues to support this very important bill that,
unfortunately, is not in this good CALFED bill, but which is very
important to Orange County.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and
inquiry.
As the gentlewoman knows, I strongly support recycling as a way to
reduce Southern California's dependence on imported water and help
drought-proof the region. That is why I supported H.R. 1156, a bill
championed by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), whose district includes the Groundwater Replenishment
System, and the gentlewoman here today from the 47th district.
I am fully supportive of House passage of H.R. 1156, H.R. 2991,
introduced by our colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
and other recycling bills reported by the House Committee on Resources,
but I know that it is up to the leadership on both sides of the aisle
to determine which bills are debated on the House floor.
In the meantime, I will continue to strongly support H.R. 1156, and I
thank the gentlewoman's support for H.R. 2828.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask the support of
our colleagues for this bill on the floor today.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Filner).
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman, on an issue
which I would hope to have seen more about in this bill, and that is
the restoration of the Salton Sea.
As we know, an earlier version of the bill provided for a feasibility
study and $300 million in restoration funds. We all know about the
importance of the Salton Sea in our ecology and in our economy. It is
critical for the Pacific flyway for migratory birds, as well as the
Colorado River's delta, and is home to a variety of wildlife, including
fish, birds, microbes, and wetlands species. The sea also provides many
recreational opportunities such as camping, bird watching, fishing,
boating, hiking, hunting, and off-roading.
If the sea were no longer able to support life, it would cause
irreparable harm to Southern California's ecosystem and economy.
The Salton Sea lies mostly in my district in Southern California. It
is the third largest saline lake in the nation, and the largest inland
body of water west of the Rockies. The Sea

[[Page H5431]]

is an important natural resource, one that is valued not only by
residents of the area, but also by the many who come from around the
country to enjoy its bounty.
The Salton Sea does not have an outlet to keep the water fresh, so as
water evaporates from the saline lake, the salt left behind continues
to concentrate. As the salinity of the Sea continues to rise, and the
environmental quality continues to decline, it will no longer be able
to support life and will begin to die. If that were to happen, it will
cause irreparable harm to Southern California's ecosystem and economy.
The surrounding areas of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys rely on
the Sea to support their agricultural and recreational economies. I
share the concerns of many about what might occur if the elevation of
the Sea drops, becomes too saline to support fish or birds, and further
impairs air quality due to blowing sediment.
The Salton Sea is also an essential link in increasing and
diversifying our domestic water resources, and therefore needs funding
for restoration. A recently signed federal water transfer agreement
between Southern California water agencies will reduce flows to the
Salton Sea. While the water transfer will assist Southern California in
staying within its Colorado River water allocation, inflows to the Sea
may be reduced dramatically. With that diminished amount of inflow, the
Salton Sea presents a particularly difficult challenge in protecting
and restoring it, while at the same time reducing California's use of
Colorado River water.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has been very supportive
of the Salton Sea and has been involved in this issue for well over a
decade.
I would like to inquire as to further support of the Salton Sea as
part of the CALFED legislative process, and would ask for the gentleman
to comment on that.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of
the Salton Sea. I would like to assure him that I and many of our
Southern California colleagues, including the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Bono) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), continue to strongly support the restoration of the Salton
Sea, and we will work with him and others in our delegation to continue
these efforts.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and look
forward to that work and urge support of the bill.

{time} 1230

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into a very brief
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee; that being, does this
bill change existing law as it relates to area of origin?
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is:
No.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza)
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support an issue that has been addressed in this House for nearly a
decade yet has never made it quite this far before today. This is an
enormous accomplishment and I applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), as well as our esteemed Senator from
California, Senator Feinstein, for overcoming numerous hurdles that
have prevented this issue from passing in recent years.
This is an immense amount of work from both sides of the aisle and
both Chambers that has gone into this measure; and, finally, we are
poised to formalize our commitment to ensuring a safe, reliable water
supply for California.
This proposal will greatly strengthen California's agricultural
economy as well as address the needs of a fast-growing population,
while at the same time maintaining our commitment to the environment.
In fact, I believe this bill strongly enhances the environment and, in
particular, the Delta of California.
This delicate balance, while difficult to achieve, is critical to the
success of CALFED. In my mind, the true test of the value of the bill
is whether it has achieved a level of compromise. While no one is
completely satisfied with this measure, everyone's concerns were
considered and addressed. This measure passes the test by leaps and
bounds. This bill has brought together parties that in the past have
had conflicts that have just torn the State apart. These stakeholders
have worked diligently now for years to develop some creative
opportunities for additional conveyance, while addressing some of the
extremely tough water quality and water supply challenges in
California.
Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. If the Federal Government does
not act now on this legislation, the future of CALFED and our
agricultural economy and viability hangs in the balance. I believe that
those of us who have pushed for additional surface storage are finally
being heard. These projects are critical to California's future and
must move forward now without pure obstructionists standing in the way.
This is a good bill for the environment, this is a good bill for the
economy, and it is a good bill for California. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``aye.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been going through trying to get reauthorization
for CALFED for a number of years and have been unable to because of the
differences of opinions from many areas of needs. I think it is time
that we move forward and begin to work on getting this CALFED passed,
which has had a lot of give on the side that we have been working on,
and for that, I thank the chairman.
We look forward to making sure that we continue to work on anything
else that some of my colleagues might want on another venue, and I
certainly would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to
vote for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close, and I want to again thank the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano) for her good work and her dedication on this
legislation. She spent many hours and much of her time traveling
through the State of California and throughout the western United
States as we came to understand the issue of water.
There are very few subjects that bring out more emotion and passion
than water, and certainly I have grown to understand the subject much
better over the last number of years. I am looking forward to passing
this bill today and moving ahead.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the bill offered by
my good friend from California and Chairman of the Resources
Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Ken Calvert.
Mr. Speaker, on balance, H.R. 2828 is not a good bill for rural
Northern California. While it takes some positive steps forward to
improve the administration of CALFED by instituting greater financial
accountability and ecosystem reporting requirements, it still allows
the implementation of an expensive, and ill-advised program that has
not produced storage nor positive results for Northern California. The
bill basically adopts and focuses on the CALFED Record of Decision
(ROD) as a framework, which does not provide a comprehensive water
solution for the State. CALFED has always been heavily weighted toward
ecosystem restoration and increasing exports from the Delta. I don't
see that changing sufficiently under this bill. New storage under
CALFED has been only empty promises, and the language in H.R. 2828
doesn't ensure otherwise. The state should take a new direction that
places a greater emphasis on water storage and constrains the ability
of state and federal agencies to buy more land and water. In short,
there is not much to be gained, but much to be lost under H.R. 2828 for
our area. As such, I strongly oppose it.
I originally supported the CALFED program in concept. Recognizing the
very serious water challenges facing our state, I shared the view held
by many other Members of Congress from California that such a joint
state-federal program could provide an opportunity for developing a
framework to solve our water woes for the long-term. Unfortunately,
rather than providing a realistic solution to allow the water

[[Page H5432]]

interests in the state to ``get well together,'' as CALFED had
originally promised, the program has become heavily weighted toward
ecosystem restoration and focused on buying land and water to shift
around already constrained water supplies, rather than on developing
new water storage to meet our state's growing water needs. In addition,
there has never been sufficient local control. Instead, federal
agencies have been empowered to make important decisions about land and
water resources impacting communities.
California faces a water deficit of potentially crisis proportions.
The water supply in the state is already stretched to its practical
limits. To put the current situation in perspective, recognize that the
State Water Project was constructed when California's population was
only 16 million people. Today it is over 34 million, and growing at a
rate of roughly 600,000 new citizens a year. Yet California's water
supply yield has increased by a mere 2 percent over the last 20 years.
And the California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98 from a few years
ago indicates that existing supply shortages will get appreciably worse
over the next 20 years as the state's population continues to increase.
Water deficits are projected to reach approximately 2.4 million acre
feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre feet in drought
years by the year 2020. If history is any guide, Californians are
likely to face major drought conditions not unlike the 500-year drought
that is currently plaguing the Colorado basin states some time in the
near future. Yet despite this pending crisis, the central focus of the
CALFED program has been a plethora of costly environmental projects and
plans to increase ability of the State and Federal water projects to
move more water to Southern California,

CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet this
incredible challenge. While it publicly recognizes water shortfalls,
the storage solutions it has proposed will not provide sufficient
supply benefits. A new Sites Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam and
augmenting Los Vaqueros could be essential pieces of our water puzzle,
but my concern is they really won't inject significant additional water
``yield'' into the system. CALFED has taken solutions such as an Auburn
Dam, a Yuba Dam, and other on-stream reservoirs off the table because
of the environmental controversy they might cause, despite the fact
that they present opportunities for new cost-effective water supplies,
and provide other benefits like flood control, electricity generation
and recreation.
Our current situation is so desperate, and the possible impacts to
the economy and public safety of another sustained drought so horrific,
that we're not in a position to take these options off the table
because they're politically unpalatable. To the contrary, we should be
vigorously pursuing them, setting deadlines and goals, streamlining
environmental review requirements, and updating federal laws to ensure
cost-effective, feasible projects will actually be built and provide
water to communities and farmers. Yet, despite several years and
millions of dollars of investments from the state and federal
government, CALFED has only studied and restudied a limited number of
small storage options, without moving the ball down the field.
Meantime, our water needs continue to grow dramatically. Fundamentally,
when the problem is too many people and not enough water, I believe the
answer is to create additional water storage, not sacrifice some parts
of the state, including California's thriving agriculture industry, so
others can get better. Carving up and reallocating an already
constrained water system will not allow everyone to ``get well
together.''
The ``Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act''
takes some positive steps forward in some areas, and will institute
some accountability into a program that desperately needs it. For
example, CALFED has spent taxpayer dollars without Congress or the
public knowing or understanding where those funds have gone, and what
the benefits for the state have been. H.R. 2828's financial reporting
requirements will help Congress better track those expenditures. In
addition, the annual reporting requirements for ecosystem restoration
provided for in the bill will help Congress better monitor those
projects, including land and water purchases. The bill also clarifies
that local fish screen projects are a legitimate and helpful way to
help local farmers meet federal and state endangered species
requirements. I believe each of these program changes represent
positive steps forward.
That being said, I do not feel this bill goes far enough to fix a
program that is fundamentally flawed and moving in the wrong direction.
While its expedited ``preauthorization'' process for CALFED storage
projects elevates storage as a principle and could set an important new
precedent for future infrastructure development, it appears to
authorize only those projects approved pursuant to the CALFED ROD. I
have long argued that CALFED's storage proposals are woefully
insufficient to address our state's water needs. According to some
estimates, a small Shasta raise, a new Sites Reservoir and a project at
Los Vaqueros--the CALFED ROD's storage projects--the approximate yield
would be only about 300,000 acre feet--far short of addressing a water
shortfall in the millions of acre feet.
The bill also does not require expedited consideration for these
projects. We have seen time and again how CALFED has dithered and
stalled in pursuing new storage. In my view, a responsible CALFED
should set hard and fast deadlines and move storage forward on an
aggressive schedule. Moreover, the federal environmental review
process, as we have seen on forest health projects, can take years and
cost millions of dollars, only to be obstructed in the end by radical
environmentalists through appeals and court challenges. The bill does
not recognize and address those hard realities. In my view, it doesn't
do enough to streamline the environmental review process, or to address
the obstacles that unbalanced environmental laws are likely to pose to
their ultimate development.
There is nothing in the bill to prevent CALFED agencies from
continuing to purchase land and water as proposed in the ROD. Indeed,
the bill explicitly authorizes the purchase of land and water as an
acceptable CALFED activity under existing authority. And while there
are reporting requirements, the impetus is on Congress to specifically
defund these agency-approved acquisitions, rather than on the agencies
to ask Congress to specifically approve and justify them. Because of
the community impacts and private property rights concerns of
additional land and water acquisitions, it should be the other way
around.
I am also concerned by proposals to place the burden of CALFED
funding on the shoulders of Sacramento Valley water users, but I
understand Chairman Calvert has attempted to address that issue. In
accordance with language contained in the report accompanying H.R.
2828, the ``beneficiary pays'' principle specifically applies to direct
beneficiaries of projects that improve the Delta. According to this
principle, project participants in the CALFED solution area are not
considered direct beneficiaries of the CALFED program. Therefore,
Sacramento Valley water users who participate in projects to improve
the Delta are not subject to any fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries
of the CALFED program.
In closing, something needs to be done--and soon--about the water
situation in California. It is only getting worse with each passing
day. Today's legislation takes some positive steps forward and I
commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. However, I fear
that the task at hand is so great that unless stronger and more
aggressive changes are made to the CALFED program, the state will fail
to meet today's and tomorrow's infrastructure challenges.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2828, the
California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects.
It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab
for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from
getting stuck with the cost for large water projects, and would open
the Federal treasury to raids by disingenuous water users. H.R. 2828
would ``preauthorize'' major water projects. A ``yes'' vote on H.R.
2828 would mean Congress gives up its long-standing right to have a say
over taxpayer funded projects. Why should the rest of the country pay
for California's water problem? They have 35 million taxpayers to pay
for it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Water
Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act, H.R. 2828,
widely known as CALFED. The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is
to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that improves
water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System. The San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, the Bay-Delta, is a
region of critical importance to California, often described as the hub
of the State's water supply system.
The authorization of the CALFED program has been a priority for
California and its neighboring States for many years. And while the
existing program has accomplished a great deal in managing our water
supply and improving the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta, this bill provides
the comprehensive Congressional accountability it has been lacking.
H.R. 2828 provides the authority for Federal agencies to fully engage
in a partnership with the State of California and the stakeholders of
the CALFED program.
We have also long recognized the importance of improving management
and coordination of existing water supply projects for meeting present
and future water demands. Preserving and enhancing the ecosystem, while
developing new sources of water for growing consumptive needs, and
allocating existing

[[Page H5433]]

supplies to meet changing demands, is a great challenge.
This challenge was met head on by the House Resources Committee under
the leadership of Chairman Richard Pombo, and Subcommittee on Water and
Power Chairman Ken Calvert. I congratulate both of them for their
extraordinary work in achieving this level of negotiation, compromise,
and support. What is even more remarkable is that the work produced by
Mr. Calvert will be voted on today without any amendments offered to it
on the House floor, with the exception of the substitute that he
crafted. This is a testament to his tenacity in providing Californians
with the best water plan possible.
I also know that Mr. Calvert and this legislation have widespread
support back home in California, beginning with Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. One of his first acts as then Governor-Elect in late
October, 2003, was to send a strong letter of support for CALFED
legislation to Congress expressing his desire to see Mr. Calvert's
legislation succeed and making CALFED authorization a priority for the
State.
H.R. 2828 will provide a long-term comprehensive plan to address
challenges in the Bay-Delta region by balancing water resource
management issues including supply, quality, and ecosystem restoration.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Water Supply, Reliability
and Environmental Improvement Act.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House
is considering H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability, and
Environmental Improvement Act.
This bill reauthorizes the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a Federal-State
cooperative effort to manage water resources in California.
The purpose of the program is to increase the supply of available
water for municipal, agricultural, and industrial use, and to engage in
watershed restoration.
Water is a very precious resource, particularly in the West.
The supply of water is governed by State law. However, many Federal
and State programs and projects also manage water resources and impact
water supply.
Eighteen Federal and State agencies are partners in the CALFED
program. Two of those agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Army Corps of Engineers, fall under the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
EPA has some existing authorities that can help meet the goals of the
CALFED program. The Corps also has many water resources development
projects either under study or under construction in the Bay-Delta
area, including the Sacramento/San Joaquin river basins comprehensive
study.
This legislation does not authorize any EPA programs or Corps
projects, even if a project is specifically mentioned in the August 28,
2000, programmatic record of decision that H.R. 2828 establishes as the
general framework for addressing the CALFED program.
EPA and Corps activities in furtherance of the CALFED program must
fall under existing authorities and nothing in this bill changes those
authorities, or directs the USA of EPA or Corps funds.
Additional Corps projects in the Bay-Delta area may be authorized
later, but those projects will go through the regular Corps of
Engineers feasibility study process and regular authorization process
in a water resources development act.
This does not mean that EPA and the Corps are not full participants
in the CALFED program. In carrying out existing programs and projects,
EPA and the Corps will coordinate their activities with all the Federal
agencies participating in CALFED, and the State of California.
I congratulate Mr. Calvert and Mr. Pombo for bringing this
legislation to the House floor. It has been a long time coming and
reflects a lot of hard work by many Members.
I urge all Members to support this bill.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for general debate
has expired.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Calvert

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Calvert:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Water Supply, Reliability,
and Environmental Improvement Act''.

TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``California Water Security
and Environmental Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Calfed bay-delta program.--The terms ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Program'' and ``Program'' mean the programs, projects,
complementary actions, and activities undertaken through
coordinated planning, implementation, and assessment
activities of the State and Federal Agencies in a manner
consistent with the Record of Decision.
(2) California bay-delta authority.--The terms ``California
Bay-Delta Authority'' and ''Authority'' mean the California
Bay-Delta Authority, as set forth in the California Bay-Delta
Authority Act (Cal. Water Code 79400 et seq.).
(3) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the cooperative management program
established under the Record of Decision.
(4) Federal agencies.--The term ``Federal agencies''
means--
(A) the Department of the Interior, including--
(i) the Bureau of Reclamation;
(ii) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
(iii) the Bureau of Land Management; and
(iv) the United States Geological Survey;
(B) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(C) the Army Corps of Engineers;
(D) the Department of Commerce, including the National
Marine Fisheries service (also known as ``NOAA Fisheries'');
(E) the Department of Agriculture, including--
(i) the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(ii) the Forest Service; and
(F) the Western Area Power Administration.
(5) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(6) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision, dated
August 28, 2000.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(9) State agencies.--The term ``State agencies'' means the
California State agencies that are signatories to Attachment
3 of the Record of Decision.
(10) Water yield.--The term ``water yield'' means a new
quantity of water in storage that is reliably available in
critically dry years for beneficial uses.

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--
(1) Record of decision as general framework.--The Record of
Decision is approved as a general framework for addressing
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, including its components
relating to water storage and water yield, ecosystem
restoration, water supply reliability, conveyance, water use
efficiency, water quality, water transfers, watersheds, the
Environmental Water Account, levee stability, governance, and
science.
(2) Requirements.--In General.-- The Secretary and the
heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to carry out the
activities under this title consistent with--
(A) the Record of Decision; and
(B) the requirement that Program activities consisting of
protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological
health, improving water supply reliability (including
additional storage and conveyance) and water yield, and
protecting Delta levees will progress in a balanced manner.
(b) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in paragraphs (2) through (5) in furtherance of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision,
subject to the cost-share and other provisions of this title,
if the activity has been:
(A) subject to environmental review and approval, as
required under applicable Federal and State law; and
(B) approved and certified by the relevant Federal agency
to be consistent with the Record of Decision and within the
scope of the agency's authority under existing law.
(2) Multiple benefit projects favored.--In selecting
projects and programs for increasing water yield and water
supply, improving water quality, and enhancing environmental
benefits, projects and programs with multiple benefits shall
be emphasized.
(3) Balance.--The Secretary shall ensure that all elements
of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program need to be completed and
operated cooperatively to maintain the balanced progress in
all Calfed Bay-Delta Program areas.
(4) Authorizations for federal agencies under applicable
law.--
(A) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to carry out the activities described
in subparagraphs (A) through (J) of paragraph (5), to the
extent authorized under the reclamation laws, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law
102-575; 106 Stat. 4706), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other applicable law.

[[Page H5434]]

(B) The administrator of the environmental protection
agency.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency may carry out the activities described in
subparagraphs (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph
(5), in furtherance of the Calfed Bay-Delta program, to the
extent authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300f et seq.), and other laws in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this title.
(C) The secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army
may carry out the activities described in subparagraphs (B),
(F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph (5), in furtherance of
the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, to the extent authorized under
flood control, water resource development, and other laws in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this title.
(D) Secretary of commerce.--The Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to carry out the activities described in
subparagraphs (B), (F), (G), and (I) of paragraph (5), to the
extent authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other applicable law.
(E) Secretary of agriculture.--The Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to carry out the activities described in
subparagraphs (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph
(5), to the extent authorized under title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
171; 116 Stat. 134) (including amendments made by that Act),
and other applicable law.
(5) Description of activities under existing
authorizations.--
(A) Water storage and water yield.--Activities under this
subparagraph consist of--
(i) Feasibility studies and resolution.--

(I) For purposes of implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Secretary is authorized to undertake all
necessary planning activities and feasibility studies
required for the development of recommendations by the
Secretary to Congress on the construction and implementation
of specific water supply and water yield projects, and to
conduct comprehensive water management planning.
(II) Feasibility studies requirements.--All feasibility
studies completed for storage projects as a result of this
section shall include identification of project benefits and
beneficiaries and a cost allocation plan consistent with the
benefits to be received, for both governmental and non-
governmental entities.
(III) Disapproval resolution.--If the Secretary determines
a project to be feasible, and meets the requirements under
subparagraph (B), the report shall be submitted to Congress.
If Congress does not pass a disapproval resolution of the
feasibility study during the first 120 days before Congress
(not including days on which either the House of
Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day
certain) the project shall be authorized, subject to
appropriations.

(iii) Relationship to prior study.--The study under clause
(ii) shall incorporate and revise as necessary the study
required by section 3408(j) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
(iv) Management.--The Secretary shall conduct activities
related to developing groundwater storage projects to the
extent authorized under existing law.
(v) Comprehensive water planning.--The Secretary shall
conduct activities related to comprehensive water management
planning to the extent authorized under existing law.
(vi) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
congressional authorizing committees by not later than 180
days after the State's completion of the updated Bulletin 160
describing the following:

(I) Water yield and water supply improvements, if any, for
Central Valley Project agricultural water service contractors
and municipal and industrial water service contractors,
including those identified in Bulletin 160.
(II) All water management actions or projects, including
those identified in Bulletin 160, that would improve water
yield or water supply and that, if taken or constructed,
would balance available water supplies and existing demand
for those contractors and other water users of the Bay-Delta
watershed with due recognition of water right priorities and
environmental needs.
(III) The financial costs of the actions and projects
described under clause (II).
(IV) The beneficiaries of those actions and projects and an
assessment of their willingness to pay the capital costs and
operation and maintenance costs thereof.

(B) Conveyance.--
(i) South delta actions.--In the case of the South Delta,
activities under this clause consist of the following:

(I) The South Delta Improvement Program through actions to
accomplish the following:

(aa) Increase the State Water Project export limit to 8,500
cfs.
(bb) Install permanent, operable barriers in the south
Delta. The Federal Agencies shall cooperate with the State to
accelerate installation of the permanent, operable barriers
in the south Delta, with the intent to complete that
installation not later than the end of fiscal year 2007.
(cc) Increase the State Water Project export to the maximum
capability of 10,300 cfs.

(II) Reduction of agricultural drainage in south Delta
channels, and other actions necessary to minimize the impact
of drainage on drinking water quality.
(III) Evaluation of lower San Joaquin River floodway
improvements.
(IV) Installation and operation of temporary barriers in
the south Delta until fully operable barriers are
constructed.
(V) Actions to protect navigation and local diversions not
adequately protected by temporary barriers.
(VI) Actions to increase pumping shall be accomplished in a
manner consistent with applicable law California and Federal
protecting--

(aa) deliveries to, costs of, and water supplies for in-
delta water users, including in-delta agricultural users that
have historically relied on water diverted for use in the
Delta;
(bb) the quality of water for existing municipal,
industrial, and agricultural uses;
(cc) water supplies for areas of origin, and
(dd) Delta dependent native fish species.
(ii) North delta actions.--In the case of the North Delta,
activities under this clause consist of--

(iii) Interties.--Activities under this clause consist of--

(iv) Program to meet standards.--Prior to increasing export
limits from the Delta for the purposes of conveying water to
south-of-Delta Central Valley Project contractors or
increasing deliveries through an intertie, the Secretary
shall, within one year of the date of enactment of this
title, in consultation with the Governor, develop and
initiate implementation of a program to meet all existing
water quality standards and objectives for which the CVP has
responsibility. In developing and implementing the program
the Secretary shall include, to the maximum extent feasible,
the following:

(I) A recirculation program to provide flow, reduce
salinity concentrations in the San Joaquin River, and reduce
the reliance on New Melones Reservoir for meeting water
quality and fishery flow objectives through the use of excess
capacity in export pumping and conveyance facilities.
(II) The Secretary shall develop and implement a best
management practices plan to reduce the impact of the
discharges from wildlife refuges that receive water from the
federal government and discharge salt or other constituents
into the San Joaquin River. Such plan shall be developed in
coordination with interested parties in the San Joaquin
Valley and the Delta. The Secretary shall also coordinate
activities with other entities that discharge water into the
San Joaquin River to reduce salinity concentrations
discharged into the River, including the timing of discharges
to optimize their assimilation.
(III) The acquisition from willing sellers of water from
streams tributary to the San Joaquin River or other sources
to provide flow, dilute discharges from wildlife refuges, and
to improve water quality in the San Joaquin River below the
confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin rivers and to reduce
the reliance on New Melones Reservoir for meeting water
quality and fishery flow objectives.
(IV) Use of existing funding mechanisms.--In implementing
the Program, the Secretary may use money collected pursuant
to Section 3407 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4727) to acquire from
voluntary sellers water from streams tributary to the San
Joaquin River or other sources for the purposes set forth in
subclauses (I) through (III) of clause (iv).
(V) The purpose of the authority and direction provided to
the Secretary in clause (iv) is to provide greater
flexibility in meeting the existing water quality standards
and objectives for which the Central Valley Project has
responsibility so as to reduce the demand on water from New
Melones Reservoir used for that purpose and to allow the
Secretary to meet with greater frequency the Secretary's
obligations to Central Valley Project contractors from the
New Melones Project. The Secretary shall update the New
Melones operating plan to consider, among other things, the
actions outlined in this Act

[[Page H5435]]

designed to reduce the reliance on new Melones Reservoir for
meeting water quality and fishery flow objectives and to
insure that operation of New Melones Reservoir is governed by
the best available science.

(C) Water use efficiency.--Activities under this
subparagraph consist of--
(i) water conservation projects that provide water supply
reliability, water quality,and ecosystem benefits to the Bay-
Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for urban and agricultural water
conservation projects;
(iii) water recycling and desalination projects, including
groundwater remediation projects and projects identified in
the Bay Area Water Plan and the Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study and other
projects, giving priority to projects that include regional
solutions to benefit regional water supply and reliability
needs;

(I) The Secretary shall review any feasibility level
studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line
projects that have been completed, whether or not those
studies were prepared with financial assistance from the
Secretary.
(II) The Secretary shall report to the Congress not later
than 90 days after the completion of a feasibility study or
the review of a feasibility study. For the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for
projects as set forth and pursuant to the existing
requirements of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-9575; title 16) as
amended, and Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-266).

(iv) water measurement and transfer actions;
(v) implementation of best management practices for urban
water conservation;- and
(vi) projects identified in the Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, dated April
2001 and authorized by section 1606 of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43
U.S.C. 390h-4); and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water
Recycling Program described in the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Water Recycling Program Recycled Water Master Plan,
dated December 1999 and authorized by section 1611 of the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-9) are determined to be feasible.
(D) Water transfers.--Activities under this subparagraph
consist of--
(i) increasing the availability of existing facilities for
water transfers;
(ii) lowering transaction costs through regulatory
coordination; and
(iii) maintaining a water transfer information
clearinghouse.
(E) Integrated regional water management plans.--Activities
under this subparagraph consist of assisting local and
regional communities in the State in developing and
implementing integrated regional water management plans to
carry out projects and programs that improve water supply
reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and flood
protection, or meet other local and regional needs, in a
manner that is consistent with, and makes a significant
contribution to, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(F) Ecosystem restoration.--
(i) Activities under this subparagraph consist of--

(I) implementation of large-scale restoration projects in
San Francisco Bay and the Delta and its tributaries;
(II) restoration of habitat in the Delta, San Pablo Bay,
and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including tidal wetland and
riparian habitat;
(III) fish screen and fish passage improvement projects;
including the Sacramento River Small Diversion Fish Screen
Program.
(IV) implementation of an invasive species program,
including prevention, control, and eradication;
(V) development and integration of Federal and State
agricultural programs that benefit wildlife into the
Ecosystem Restoration Program;
(VI) financial and technical support for locally-based
collaborative programs to restore habitat while addressing
the concerns of local communities;
(VII) water quality improvement projects to manage and
reduce concentrations of salinity, selenium, mercury,
pesticides, trace metals, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
sediment, and other pollutants;
(VIII) land and water acquisitions to improve habitat and
fish spawning and survival in the Delta and its tributaries;
(IX) integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration,
and levee protection projects;
(X) scientific evaluations and targeted research on Program
activities; and
(XI) strategic planning and tracking of Program
performance.

(ii) Annual ecosystem program plan.--

(I) Prior to October 1 of each year, with respect to an
ecosystem restoration action carried out by or for the
Secretary, the Secretary shall submit an annual ecosystem
program plan report to the appropriate authorizing and
appropriating committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The purpose of the report is to describe the
projects and programs to implement the activities under this
subsection in the following fiscal year, and to establish
priorities for funding in subsequent years. For the ecosystem
program, and each ecosystem project the report shall
describe--

(aa) the goals and objectives
(bb) program accomplishments,
(cc) major activities,
(dd) the administration responsibilities of land and water
areas and associated environmental resources, in the affected
project area including an accounting of all habitat types.
Cost-share arrangements with cooperating agencies should be
included in the report, and
(ee) the resource data and ecological monitoring data to be
collected for the restoration projects and how the data are
to be integrated, streamlined, and designed to measure the
effectiveness and overall trend of ecosystem health in the
Bay-Delta watershed;
(ff) implementation schedules and budgets;
(gg) monitoring programs and performance measures; and
(hh) the status and effectiveness of minimizing and
mitigating the impacts of the program on agricultural lands.
(ii) a description of expected benefits of the restoration
program relative to the cost.

(II) For Federal projects and programs to be carried out by
or for the Secretary not specifically identified in the
annual program plans the Secretary, in coordination with the
State, shall submit recommendations on proposed plans, no
later than 45 days prior to approval, to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, the House Resources
Committee, and the public. The recommendations shall--

(aa) describe the project selection process, including the
level of public involvement and independent science review;
(bb) describe the goals, objectives, and implementation
schedule of the projects, and the extent to which the
projects address regional and programmatic goals and
priorities;
(cc) describe the monitoring plans and performance measures
that will be used for evaluating the performance of the
proposed projects;
(dd) identify any cost-sharing arrangements with
cooperating entities; and
(ee) identify how the proposed projects will comply with
all applicable Federal and State laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act.

(III) Projects involving acquisition of private lands shall
be included in subsection (I) of the Annual Ecosystem Program
Plan. Each project identified shall--

(aa) describe the process and timing of notification of
interested members of the public and local governments;
(bb) minimize and mitigate impacts on agricultural lands;
(cc) include preliminary management plans for all
properties to be acquired with Federal funds. Such
preliminary management plans shall include an overview of
existing conditions, the expected ecological benefits,
preliminary cost estimates, and implementation schedules;
(dd) identify federal land acquisition in total, by a
county by county basis; and,
(ee) provide a finding of consistency with all applicable
State and Federal law.
(G) Watersheds.--Activities under this subparagraph consist
of--
(i) building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds
affecting the Calfed Bay-Delta system;
(ii) technical assistance for watershed assessments and
management plans; and
(iii) developing and implementing locally-based watershed
conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
(H) Water quality.--Activities under this subparagraph
consist of--
(i) addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley
to improve downstream water quality (including habitat
restoration projects that reduce drainage and improve water
quality) if--

(viii) development of water quality exchanges and other
programs to make high quality water available for urban and
other users;

[[Page H5436]]

(ix) development and implementation of a plan to meet all
water quality standards for which the Federal and State water
projects have responsibility;
(x) development of recommendations through technical panels
and advisory council processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in water quality for
all uses; and
(xi) projects that may meet the framework of the water
quality component of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(I) Science.--Activities under this subparagraph consist
of--
(i) supporting establishment and maintenance of an
independent science board, technical panels, and standing
boards to provide oversight and peer review of the Program;
(ii) conducting expert evaluations and scientific.
assessments of all Program elements;
(iii) coordinating existing monitoring and scientific
research programs;
(iv) developing and implementing adaptive management
experiments to test, refine, and improve scientific
understandings;
(v) establishing performance measures, and monitoring and
evaluating the performance of all Program elements; and
(vi) preparing an annual science report.
(J) Diversification of water supplies.--Activities under
this subparagraph consist of actions to diversify sources of
level 2 refuge supplies and modes of delivery to refuges
while maintaining the diversity of level 4 supplies pursuant
to Central Valley Project Improvement Act section 3406(d)(2),
Public Law 102-575 (106 Stat. 4723).
(6) New and expanded authorizations for Federal agencies.--
(A) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to carry out the activities described
in subparagraphs (A) , (B), (C) and (D) of paragraph (7)
during each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, in
coordination with the State of California.
(B) The administrator of the environmental protection
agency and the secretary of the army.--The Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the
Army may carry out activities described in subparagraph (D)
of paragraph 7 during each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008,
in coordination with the State of California.
(C) The secretaries of agriculture and commerce.--The
Secretary of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture, are
authorized to carry out the activities described in paragraph
(7)(D) during each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, in
coordination with the State of California.
(7) Description of activities under new and expanded
authorizations.--
(A) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 109, not more than $184,000,000
may be expended for the following:
(i) Feasibility studies, evaluation, and implementation of
the San Luis Reservoir lowpoint improvement project and
increased capacity of the intertie between the SWP California
Aqueduct and the CVP Delta Mendota Canal, near the City of
Tracy.
(ii) Feasibility studies and actions at Franks Tract to
improve water quality in the Delta.
(iii) Feasibility studies and design of fish screen and
intake facilities at Clifton Court Forebay and the Tracy
Pumping Plant facilities.
(iv) Design and construction of the relocation of drinking
water intake facilities to delta water users. The Secretary
shall coordinate actions for relocating intake facilities on
a time schedule consistent with subparagraph (5)(B)(i)(I)(bb)
or other actions necessary to offset the degradation of
drinking water quality in the Delta due to the South Delta
Improvement Program.
(v) In addition to the other authorizations granted to the
Secretary by this title, the Secretary shall acquire water
from willing sellers and undertake other actions designed to
decrease releases from New Melones Reservoir for meeting
water quality standards and flow objectives for which the
Central Valley Project has responsibility in order to meet
allocations to Central Valley Project contractors from the
New Melones Project. The authorization under this provision
is solely meant to add flexibility for the Secretary to meet
the Secretary's obligation to the Central Valley Project
contractors from the New Melones Project by reducing demand
for water dedicated to meeting water quality standards in the
San Joaquin River. Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (7)(A), not more than
$15,260,000 may be expended for this purpose.
(B) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated under section 109, not more than
$90,000,000 may be expended for implementation of the
Environmental Water Account; Provided That such expenditures
shall be considered a nonreimbursable Federal expenditure.
(C) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 109, not more than $90,000,000 may
be expended for--
(i) reconstructing Delta levees to a base level of
protection;
(ii) enhancing the stability of levees that have particular
importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special
Improvement Projects program;
(iii) developing best management practices to control and
reverse land subsidence on Delta islands;
(iv) refining the Delta Emergency Management Plan;
(v) developing a Delta Risk Management Strategy after
assessing the consequences of Delta levee failure from
floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes;
(vi) developing a strategy for reuse of dredged materials
on Delta islands;
(vii) evaluating, and where appropriate, rehabilitating the
Suisun Marsh levees; and
(D) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 109,
not more than $25,000,000 may be expended by the Secretary or
the other heads of Federal agencies, either directly or
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with
agencies of the State, for--
(i) program support;
(ii) program-wide tracking of schedules, finances, and
performance;
(iii) multiagency oversight and coordination of Program
activities to ensure Program balance and integration;
(iv) development of interagency cross-cut budgets and a
comprehensive finance plan to allocate costs in accordance
with the beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of
Decision;
(v) coordination of public outreach and involvement,
including tribal, environmental justice, and public advisory
activities in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
(vi) development of Annual Reports.

SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT.

(a) Coordination.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Federal agencies shall coordinate their
activities with the State agencies.
(b) Public Participation.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program, the Federal agencies shall cooperate with
local and tribal governments and the public through an
advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and other appropriate
means, to seek input on Program elements such as planning,
design, technical assistance, and development of peer review
science programs.
(c) Science.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program,
the Federal agencies shall seek to ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, that--
(1) all major aspects of implementing the Program are
subjected to credible and objective scientific review; and
(2) major decisions are based upon the best available
scientific information.
(d) Environmental Justice.--The Federal agencies and State
agencies, consistent with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR Fed.
Reg. 7629), should continue to collaborate to--
(1) develop a comprehensive environmental justice workplan
for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program; and
(2) fulfill the commitment to addressing environmental
justice challenges referred to in the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program Environmental Justice Workplan, dated December 13,
2000.
(e) Land Acquisition.--Federal funds appropriated by
Congress specifically for implementation of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program may be used to acquire fee title to land only
where consistent with the Record of Decision and section
103(b)(5)(F)(ii)(I)(jj).
(f) Agencies' Discretion.--This title shall not affect the
discretion of any of the Federal agencies or the State
agencies or the authority granted to any of the Federal
agencies or State agencies by any other Federal or State law.
(g) No New Authority.--The United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this title confers any new
authority, except as provided under section 103(b)(7)(D) to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(2) Coordination.--In carrying out activities identified in
the Record of Decision under authorities provided under other
provisions of law, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the United States army Corps of Engineers shall
coordinate such activities with Federal agencies and State
agencies.
(h) Governance.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Secretary and the Federal agency heads may
participate as nonvoting members of the California Bay-Delta
Authority, as established in the California Bay-Delta
Authority Act (Cal. Water Code 79400 et seq.), to the extent
consistent with Federal law, for the full duration of the
period the Authority continues to be authorized by State law.

SEC. 105. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

[[Page H5437]]

schedule for the Program in a manner consistent with the
Record of Decision;
(B) the status of implementation of all components of the
Program;
(C) expenditures in the past fiscal year for implementing
the Program;
(D) accomplishments during the past fiscal year in
achieving the objectives of additional and improved--
(i) water storage, including water yield;
(ii) water quality; including the progress in achieving the
water supply targets as described in Section 2.2.4 of the
Record of Decision, the environmental water account
requirements as described in Section 2.2.7, and the water
quality targets as described in Section 2.2.9, and any
pending actions that may affect the ability of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program to achieve those targets and requirements.
(iii) water use efficiency;
(iv) ecosystem restoration;
(v) watershed management;
(vi) levee system integrity;
(vii) water transfers;
(viii) water conveyance; and
(ix) water supply reliability;
(E) program goals, current schedules, and relevant
financing agreements;
(F) progress on--
(i) storage projects;
(ii) conveyance improvements;
(iii) levee improvements;
(iv) water quality projects; and
(v) water use efficiency programs;
(G) completion of key projects and milestones identified in
the Ecosystem Restoration Program; including progress on
project effectiveness, monitoring, and accomplishments;
(H) development and implementation of local programs for
watershed conservation and restoration;
(I) progress in improving water supply reliability and
implementing the Environmental Water Account;
(J) achievement of commitments under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and endangered species
law of the State;
(K) implementation of a comprehensive science program;
(i) progress on project effectiveness;
(L) progress toward acquisition of the Federal and State
permits (including permits under section 404(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a))) for
implementation of projects in all identified Program areas;
(M) progress in achieving benefits in all geographic
regions covered by the Program;
(N) legislative action on--
(i) water transfer;
(ii) groundwater management;
(iii) water use efficiency; and
(iv) governance issues;
(O) the status of complementary actions;
(P) the status of mitigation measures;
(Q) revisions to funding commitments and Program
responsibilities; and
(R) a list of all existing authorities, including the
authorities listed in section 103(b)(4) provided by the
relevant Federal agency, under which the Secretary or the
heads of the Federal agencies may carry out the purposes of
this title.''
(b) Annual Review of Progress and Balance.--
(1) In general.--Not later than November 15 of each year,
the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall review
progress in implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program based
on--
(A) consistency with the Record of Decision; and
(B) balance in achieving the goals and objectives of the
Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(2) Revised schedule.--If, at the conclusion of each such
annual review or if a timely annual review is not undertaken,
the Secretary, or the Governor, determine in writing that
either the Program implementation schedule has not been
substantially adhered to, or that balanced progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program is not
occurring, the Secretary, in coordination with the Governor
and the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, shall prepare a
revised schedule to achieve balanced progress in all Calfed
Bay-Delta Program elements consistent with the Record of
Decision.
(c) Feasibility Studies.--Any feasibility studies completed
as a result of this title shall include identification of
project benefits and a cost allocation plan consistent with
the beneficiaries pay provisions of the Record of Decision.

SEC. 106. CROSSCUT BUDGET.

(a) In General.--The President's budget shall include such
requests as the President considers necessary and appropriate
for the level of funding for each of the Federal agencies to
carry out its responsibilities under the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program.
(b) Requests by Federal Agencies.--The funds shall be
requested for the Federal agency with authority and
programmatic responsibility for the obligation of the funds,
in accordance with paragraphs (2) through (5) of section
103(b).
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the submission of
the budget of the President to Congress, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the
Governor, shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and
appropriating committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a financial report certified by the Secretary
containing--
(1) an interagency budget crosscut report that--
(A) displays the budget proposed, including any interagency
or intra-agency transfer, for each of the Federal agencies to
carry out the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for the upcoming
fiscal year, separately showing funding requested under both
pre-existing authorities and under the new authorities
granted by this title; and
(B) identifies all expenditures since 1998 by the Federal
and State governments to achieve the objectives of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program;
(2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and
obligated by all Federal agencies and State agencies
responsible for implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program
during the previous fiscal year;
(3) a budget for the proposed projects (including a
description of the project, authorization level, and project
status) to be carried out in the upcoming fiscal year with
the Federal portion of funds for activities under section
103(b); and
(4) a listing of all projects to be undertaken in the
upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion of funds for
activities under section 103(b).

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

(a) In General.--The Federal share of the cost of
implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years
2005 through 2008 in the aggregate, as set forth in the
Record of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
(b) Calfed Bay-Delta Program Beneficiaries.--The Secretary
shall ensure that all beneficiaries, including the
environment, shall pay for benefits received from all
projects or activities carried out under the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program. This requirement shall not be limited to storage and
conveyance projects and shall be implemented so as to
encourage integrated resource planning.

SEC. 108. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

Nothing in this title--
(1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an
interstate compact governing water;
(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated
share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water;
(3) preempts or modifies any State or Federal law or
interstate compact governing water quality or disposal; or
(4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource;and,
(5) alters or modified any provision of existing Federal
law, except as specifically provided in this title.

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

TITLE II--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM

SEC. 201. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of reclaiming
the Salton Sea.
(b) Requirements.--The study referred to in subsection (a)
shall consider each of the following:
(1) Appraisal investigations.
(2) Feasibility studies.
(3) Environmental Reports.
(4) Cost sharing responsibilities.
(5) Responsibility for operation and maintenance.
(c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress the study developed under this section no later than
1 year after the date of enactment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 711, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) on
his amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard to improve this bill since its
introduction. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is a
bipartisan amendment that has been carefully crafted based on input
from Senator Feinstein and her staff, the administration, the State of
California, and water groups. This amendment was not crafted in a
vacuum, and I believe it addresses many concerns voiced over the last
several weeks.
Reflecting the dynamic that differing regions of California
represent, as opposed to the whole State, the amendment also includes
necessary policy provisions:
Bay-Delta water quality protections: Bay-Delta water quality issues
have not been adequately addressed in the past and they need to be
fixed now. It is not fair that the constituents of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), or the constituents of the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), or the constituents of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) should bear the highest water quality
burdens because of circumstances outside their control.

[[Page H5438]]

These water quality provisions addressed in this bill are the results
of discussions between water users throughout California, including in-
Delta water uses. Most importantly, these provisions do not allow
increased pumping unless water quality standards are met.
Water storage: Everyone wants to have more flexibility delivering
water supplies throughout the State. Increased storage will give us
more flexibility and improve water quality. In fact, my good friends in
districts in the Bay area and beyond recently supported the Los
Vaqueros expansion for these very purposes. My amendment provides that
CALFED storage projects are subject to appropriate feasibility studies
and if Congress does not act to disapprove them in 120 days, then
construction is authorized.
Ensuring that adequate storage is part of a balanced CALFED is
important here since CALFED expenditures so far have been imbalanced.
This provision helps develop CALFED storage, and in no way undermines
the regulatory process, including the Endangered Species Act, NEPA,
SEQA, the Clean Water Act, and a number of other Federal acts and laws.
Furthermore, these projects are still subject to appropriations.
Ecosystem restoration: The amendment has a ``right to know''
provision on how taxpayer dollars are being spent on ecosystem
restoration. These provisions ask the Federal agencies to submit a
management plan for CALFED-related ecosystem projects. These management
plans would require a cost analysis, possible alternatives, disclosure
of impacts, and required mitigation. All other projects, like storage
projects, require much more detailed feasibility reports. We are only
asking for a management plan that sits before Congress, which has no
veto authority over such a management plan. This is nothing more than a
good government plan that in no way hinders ecosystem restoration.
Mr. Speaker, there has never been a water bill that everybody likes.
God knows I know that. But this is getting close. We have worked hard
to resolve concerns and will continue to work with my colleagues and
stakeholders on these issues. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of
the good. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) seek to control the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member seek to control time in
opposition?
If not, without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano) may control the time reserved for opposition; and the
gentlewoman is recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my good friend, the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for
accommodating suggestions from minority staff and myself to improve
this bill.
In particular, I am very pleased that the language that was inserted
earlier in the week to allow the use of Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund for the Environmental Water Account purchases has been
deleted. This revision would make it clear that the CVP Restoration
Fund cannot be used inappropriately.
I am very thankful and look forward to continuing to work on
California's water projects, as well as other projects for the rest of
the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the amendment has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 711, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment in the nature of a
substitute by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. George Miller of california

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. George Miller of California moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2828, to the Committee on Resources, with instructions
to report the bill forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike Section 103(b)(5)(A)(i)(III).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit, and every
Member of the House who is concerned about runaway spending should join
me in this vote.
The motion seeks to delete just one feature of this bill: The so-
called ``preauthorization of future California water projects'' that
ends a century of congressional review and design of massive, costly,
and sometimes controversial water projects.
Passing this bill without deleting the so-called preauthorization
provision grants a blank check to bureaucrats and Federal agencies to
spend billions of dollars on dams, conveyance facilities, and other
potentially controversial water projects in California without any
further authorization by Congress.
This provision grants special privileges to California projects. They
alone, not projects in Arizona, Colorado, or New Mexico, or anywhere
else in the reclamation west, would be cleared for construction based
upon a study done by the planners in the Department of the Interior. A
study might reveal serious fiscal, legal, or environmental problems.
But the project goes ahead anyway unless Congress passes a bill to stop
it. If that bill is not brought to the floor of the House, the project
goes forward.
So as projects in other States are forced to wait for bills to pass
authorizing their construction, California moves to the front of the
line, awaiting no authorization, freed from the scrutiny that will be
imposed on projects in every other State. Those of you who have been
here for a while know that water projects typically move in packages so
that no State is left behind. Well, say goodbye to that process if this
bill passes with the California preauthorization process, because many
of the biggest, most expensive, most controversial projects will be off
and running while you are still in the paddock.
Now, some may ask, why would I, as a Californian, raise this concern?
Because I am a strong supporter of CALFED, I am a strong supporter of
the record of decision, and I would like to support this legislation.
But as the former chairman of both the Subcommittee on Water and Power
and the full Committee on Resources, I know that a project that
bypasses the authorization process is going to face withering
opposition in the appropriations process and in the regulatory and
judicial process and among the voters back at home, and that is why I
offer this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in strong support of the Miller-Tauscher motion
to recommit.
As a member of California who represents a large part of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta, I fully understand the importance of reauthorizing
the CALFED program. Now more than

[[Page H5439]]

ever, California needs the Federal Government to be an active financial
partner in helping restore the delta's ecosystem and meeting our
State's growing water needs.
However, the preauthorization language in this bill severely
jeopardizes our ability to renew this critical State-Federal
partnership. Not only is it bad economic and environmental policy, but
insisting on preauthorization, knowing that the other body will reject
it, is a failed strategy for reaching agreement this year. Passing this
bill as it is currently drafted is a divisive step that fails to really
help Californians.
Mr. Speaker, with less than 30 legislative days remaining in the
108th Congress, we must have a smart strategy to get a CALFED bill done
for the people of California before we adjourn. I urge my colleagues to
support this motion, which will simply remove one paragraph from the
bill and immediately return it to the House for consideration.
Our constituents sent us here to make timely progress on water
policies that will help them. Removing this objectionable roadblock
provision will help us move forward. I urge my colleagues to support
the motion to recommit.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments,
and say to the House that if this motion is passed, the bill would come
back immediately to the House for its consideration and then it would
move on to the Senate without this very controversial provision that
has substantial Senate opposition and we can get on with passing this
bill that the people have worked so terribly hard on and which our
State needs.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is not about setting a precedent over the way legislation is
done. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has already
pointed out, this is done very regularly in the process here.

{time} 1245

My colleagues that offer this motion to recommit are not offering a
motion to strip out everything that is authorized in this bill. They
are only going after specifically the water storage projects. This is a
bill that has been in the process, as has been said, many times for
over 10 years of trying to come up with a compromise that everybody,
Northern California, Southern California, east and west, everybody
supported.
We were able to put together a compromise with the good work of the
subcommittee chairman and ranking member, and now we have somebody
coming to the floor trying to blow that up. It is the same thing that
we fought through with all of the water problems in California. You
always have somebody who thinks they did not get everything they wanted
or that somebody else may be getting something, and they try to blow it
up. That is exactly what is going on here.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking Democrat.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit on H.R. 2828. The passage of this motion would prevent a
bipartisan measure from moving forward, and we have worked in good
faith with the chairman and his staff to try to develop the California
water bill. And I know, as has been said, we do not all get what we
want. I know I did not get everything I needed and wanted.
The gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) has stripped
numerous provisions that I objected to, including language relating to
the Clean Water Act, the Beneficiary Pays, the role of the Record of
Decision, and the role of the Interior Department in implementing the
CALFED program.
I am sympathetic to the issue. However, I cannot support this motion
to recommit at this time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise in opposition to this
motion. H.R. 2828 has been negotiated in a bipartisan manner, and I
have been pleased to be part of such a fair and open process. The
gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) have maintained a very open process, as both
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and I can attest.
The majority has accepted several of the requests that were put
forward by the Democratic committee members, including critical water
quality and water recycling language, and have acted in good faith. To
send this bill back to committee now would mean the likely end to
CALFED this year. If we do not act today and send this bill to
conference where ongoing conversations with Senator Feinstein can
resume, we will lose precious time and I fear lose our remaining window
of opportunity to address the water crisis in California.
Because of the job-creation impact, the building trades unions
mentioned in my previous Dear Colleague wholeheartedly support final
passage of H.R. 2828.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to defeat this motion.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
knows, negotiating water agreements is not easy; and we have had
numerous conversations about the subject of water over the years. And
certainly he has a long history in water in the State of California. As
everyone knows who has been involved in water negotiations, they are
difficult. There are conflicts all over the place. One of the concepts
that we took when we went down this road was balance; and the Record of
Decision that was a difficult Record of Decision to come to a
conclusion, part of that was water storage on four projects. There were
a lot more water projects that were being considered in that Record of
Decision, but it was weaned down in difficult negotiations to really a
limited amount of water storage.
Over $12 million has been spent to date on looking at the feasibility
of these four projects. All of the environmental laws must be met, and
that is considerable, before any of these projects could ever become
feasible. And even then if in fact they are deemed feasible, you would
have to go through the appropriation process.
As I would point out to my friends, the Auburn Dam is an authorized
project. I doubt if it will ever get appropriations to build. Unless a
project is feasible, unless it has the political support in order to
build, it will not happen.
And so I would say this motion to recommit takes the balance out of
the process that we put together, and I believe it would remove all
support for this CALFED process to continue. So I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on
final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the time for any electronic vote, if ordered, on the question of
passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 139,
nays 255, not voting 40, as follows:

[Roll No. 354]

YEAS--139

Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman

[[Page H5440]]

Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--255

Aderholt
Akin
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--40

Ackerman
Bell
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (TX)
Carson (IN)
Collins
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Dicks
Fattah
Gephardt
Gerlach
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Isakson
John
Jones (OH)
King (NY)
Kirk
LaHood
Lee
Lipinski
Lofgren
Majette
Meeks (NY)
Norwood
Paul
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Rangel
Reyes
Tanner
Tauzin
Waxman
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members
are reminded to record their votes.

{time} 1312

Mr. MORAN of Kansas and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER and Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, DAVIS of Illinois,
STRICKLAND, RUSH, and ANDREWS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, I missed rollcall vote No.
354, the motion to recommit for H.R. 2828. I missed the vote due to a
meeting I had with the President of the World Bank. Had I been present
I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________