Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8224-H8235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the
Senate amendment to 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.
The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Bay Delta program.
Sec. 104. Management.
Sec. 105. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 106. Crosscut budget.
Sec. 107. Federal share of costs.
Sec. 108. Compliance with State and Federal law.
Sec. 109. Authorization of appropriation.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 201. Salton Sea study program.
Sec. 202. Alder Creek water storage and conservation project
feasibility study and report.
Sec. 203. Folsom Reservoir temperature control device authorization.

TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Calfed Bay-Delta
Authorization 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 agencies and Federal agencies as set
forth in 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 Sec. 79400 et seq.).
(3) Delta.--The term ``Delta'' has the meaning given the
term in the Record of Decision.
(4) Environmental water account.--The term ``Environmental
Water Account'' means the Cooperative Management Program
established under the Record of Decision.
(5) 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; and
(ii) the Forest Service; and
(F) the Western Area Power Administration.
(6) Firm yield.--The term ``firm yield'' means a quantity
of water from a project or program that is projected to be
available on a reliable basis, given a specified level of
risk, during a critically dry period.
(7) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of California.
(8) Record of decision.--The term ``Record of Decision''
means the Calfed Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision, dated
August 28, 2000.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(11) State agencies.--The term ``State agencies'' means--
(A) the Resources Agency of California, including--
(i) the Department of Water Resources;
(ii) the Department of Fish and Game;
(iii) the Reclamation Board;
(iv) the Delta Protection Commission;
(v) the Department of Conservation;
(vi) the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission;
(vii) the Department of Parks and Recreation; and
(viii) the California Bay-Delta Authority;
(B) the California Environmental Protection Agency,
including the State Water Resources Control Board;
(C) the California Department of Food and Agriculture; and
(D) the Department of Health Services.

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, ecosystem restoration, water
supply reliability (including new firm yield), conveyance,
water use efficiency, water quality, water transfers,
watersheds, the Environmental Water Account, levee stability,
governance, and science.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal
agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described
in subsections (c) through (f) consistent with--
(i) the Record of Decision;
(ii) the requirement that Program activities consisting of
protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological
health, improving water supply reliability (including
additional storage, conveyance, and new firm yield), and
protecting Delta levees will progress in a balanced manner;
and
(iii) this title.
(B) Multiple benefits.--In selecting activities and
projects, the Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies
shall consider whether the activities and projects have
multiple benefits.
(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary and the heads of
the Federal agencies are authorized to carry out the
activities described in subsections (c) through (f) 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--
(1) subject to environmental review and approval, as
required under applicable Federal and State law; and
(2) approved and certified by the relevant Federal agency,
following consultation and coordination with the Governor, to
be consistent with the Record of Decision.
(c) Authorizations for Federal Agencies Under Applicable
Law.--
(1) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to carry out the activities described
in paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection (d), 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.
(2) Administrator of the environmental protection agency.--
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is
authorized to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of subsection

[[Page H8225]]

(d), 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
applicable law.
(3) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army is
authorized to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (1), (2), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of subsection
(d), to the extent authorized under flood control, water
resource development, and other applicable law.
(4) Secretary of commerce.--The Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (2), (6), (7), and (9) of subsection (d), 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.
(5) Secretary of agriculture.--The Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of subsection
(d), 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.
(d) Description of Activities Under Applicable Law.--
(1) Water storage.--
(A) In general.--Activities under this paragraph consist
of--
(i) planning and feasibility studies for projects to be
pursued with project-specific study for enlargement of--

(I) the Shasta Dam in Shasta County; and
(II) the Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County;

(ii) planning and feasibility studies for the following
projects requiring further consideration--

(I) the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County; and
(II) the Upper San Joaquin River storage in Fresno and
Madera Counties;

(iii) developing and implementing groundwater management
and groundwater storage projects; and
(iv) comprehensive water management planning.
(B) Storage project authorization and balanced calfed
implementation.--
(i) In general.--If on completion of the feasibility study
for a project described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor,
determines that the project should be constructed in whole or
in part with Federal funds, the Secretary shall submit the
feasibility study to Congress.
(ii) Finding of imbalance.--If Congress fails to authorize
construction of the project by the end of the next full
session following the submission of the feasibility study,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, shall
prepare a written determination making a finding of imbalance
for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(iii) Report on rebalancing.--

(I) In general.--If the Secretary makes a finding of
imbalance for the Program under clause (ii), the Secretary,
in consultation with the Governor, shall, not later than 180
days after the end of the full session described in clause
(ii), prepare and submit to Congress a report on the measures
necessary to rebalance the Program.
(II) Schedules and alternatives.--The report shall include
preparation of revised schedules and identification of
alternatives to rebalance the Program, including resubmission
of the project to Congress with or without modification,
construction of other projects, and construction of other
projects that provide equivalent water supply and other
benefits at equal or lesser cost.

(C) Water supply and yield study.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau
of Reclamation and in coordination with the State, shall
conduct a study of available water supplies and existing and
future needs for water--

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

(ii) Relationship to prior study.--In conducting the study,
the Secretary shall incorporate and revise, as necessary, the
results of the study required by section 3408(j) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-575; 106 Stat. 4730).
(iii) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report describing
the results of the study, including--

(I) new firm 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--

(aa) improve firm yield or water supply; and
(bb) if taken or constructed, balance available water
supplies and existing demand with due recognition of water
right priorities and environmental needs;

(III) the financial costs of the actions and projects
described under subclause (II); and
(IV) the beneficiaries of those actions and projects and an
assessment of the willingness of the beneficiaries to pay the
capital costs and operation and maintenance costs of the
actions and projects.

(D) Management.--The Secretary shall conduct activities
related to developing groundwater storage projects to the
extent authorized under law.
(E) Comprehensive water planning.--The Secretary shall
conduct activities related to comprehensive water management
planning to the extent authorized under law.
(2) Conveyance.--
(A) South delta actions.--
(i) In general.--In the case of the South Delta, activities
under this subparagraph consist of--

(I) the South Delta Improvements Program through actions
to--

(aa) increase the State Water Project export limit to 8,500
cfs;
(bb) install permanent, operable barriers in the South
Delta, under which Federal agencies shall cooperate with the
State to accelerate installation of the permanent, operable
barriers in the South Delta, with an intent to complete that
installation not later than September 30, 2007;
(cc) evaluate, consistent with the Record of Decision, fish
screens and intake facilities at the Tracy Pumping Plant
facilities; and
(dd) 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; and
(V) actions to protect navigation and local diversions not
adequately protected by temporary barriers.

(ii) Actions to increase pumping.--Actions to increase
pumping shall be accomplished in a manner consistent with the
Record of Decision requirement to avoid redirected impacts
and adverse impacts to fishery protection and with any
applicable Federal or State law that protects--

(I) water diversions and use (including avoidance of
increased costs of diversion) by in-Delta water users
(including in-Delta agricultural users that have historically
relied on water diverted for use in the Delta);
(II) water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural,
and other uses; and
(III) water supplies for areas of origin.

(B) North delta actions.--In the case of the North Delta,
activities under this subparagraph 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.
(C) Interties.--Activities under this subparagraph 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,
as an operation and maintenance activity, except that the
Secretary shall design and construct the intertie in a manner
consistent with a possible future expansion of the intertie
capacity (as described in subsection (f)(1)(B)); 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.
(D) Program to meet standards.--
(i) In general.--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, not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, in consultation
with the Governor, develop and initiate implementation of a
program to meet all existing water quality standards and
objectives for which the Central Valley Project has
responsibility.
(ii) Measures.--In developing and implementing the program,
the Secretary shall include, to the maximum extent feasible,
the measures described in clauses (iii) through (vii).
(iii) Recirculation program.--The Secretary shall
incorporate into the program a recirculation program to
provide flow, reduce salinity concentrations in the San
Joaquin River, and reduce the reliance on the New Melones
Reservoir for meeting water quality and fishery flow
objectives through the use of excess capacity in export
pumping and conveyance facilities.
(iv) Best management practices plan.--

(I) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and implement,
in coordination with the State's programs to improve water
quality in the San Joaquin River, a best management practices
plan to reduce the water quality impacts of the discharges
from wildlife refuges that receive water from the Federal
Government and discharge salt or other constituents into the
San Joaquin River.
(II) Coordination with interested parties.--The plan shall
be developed in coordination with interested parties in the
San Joaquin Valley and the Delta.
(III) Coordination with entities that discharge water.--The
Secretary shall also coordinate activities under this clause
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.

(v) Acquisition of water.--The Secretary shall incorporate
into the program the acquisition from willing sellers of
water from streams tributary to the San Joaquin River or
other sources to provide flow, dilute discharges of salt or
other constituents, 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.

[[Page H8226]]

(vi) Purpose.--The purpose of the authority and direction
provided to the Secretary under this subparagraph 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
assist the Secretary in meeting any obligations to Central
Valley Project contractors from the New Melones Project.
(vii) Updating of new melones operating plan.--The
Secretary shall update the New Melones operating plan to take
into account, among other things, the actions described in
this title that are designed to reduce the reliance on New
Melones Reservoir for meeting water quality and fishery flow
objectives, and to ensure that actions to enhance fisheries
in the Stanislaus River are based on the best available
science.
(3) Water use efficiency.--
(A) Water conservation projects.--Activities under this
paragraph include water conservation projects that provide
water supply reliability, water quality, and ecosystem
benefits to the California Bay-Delta system.
(B) Technical assistance.--Activities under this paragraph
include technical assistance for urban and agricultural water
conservation projects.
(C) Water recycling and desalination projects.--Activities
under this paragraph include 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.
(D) Water measurement and transfer actions.--Activities
under this paragraph include water measurement and transfer
actions.
(E) Urban water conservation.--Activities under this
paragraph include implementation of best management practices
for urban water conservation.
(F) Reclamation and recycling projects.--
(i) Projects.--This subparagraph applies to--

(I) 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
(II) projects identified in 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).

(ii) Deadline.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--

(I) complete the review of the existing studies of the
projects described in clause (i); and
(II) make the feasibility determinations described in
clause (iii).

(iii) Feasibility determinations.--A project described in
clause (i) is presumed to be feasible if the Secretary
determines for the project--

(I) in consultation with the affected local sponsoring
agency and the State, that the existing planning and
environmental studies for the project (together with
supporting materials and documentation) have been prepared
consistent with Bureau of Reclamation procedures for projects
under consideration for financial assistance under the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.); and
(II) that the planning and environmental studies for the
project (together with supporting materials and
documentation) demonstrate that the project will contribute
to the goals of improving water supply reliability in the
Calfed solution area or the Colorado River Basin within the
State and otherwise meets the requirements of section 1604 of
the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-2).

(iv) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
completion of a feasibility study or the review of a
feasibility study under this subparagraph, the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating
committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report describing the results of the study or review.
(4) Water transfers.--Activities under this paragraph
consist of--
(A) increasing the availability of existing facilities for
water transfers;
(B) lowering transaction costs through permit streamlining;
and
(C) maintaining a water transfer information clearinghouse.
(5) Integrated regional water management plans.--Activities
under this paragraph 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.
(6) Ecosystem restoration.--
(A) In general.--Activities under this paragraph 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 or
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.
(B) Reporting requirements.--The Secretary or the head of
the relevant Federal agency (as appropriate under clause
(ii)) shall provide to the appropriate authorizing committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives and other
appropriate parties in accordance with this subparagraph--
(i) an annual ecosystem program plan report in accordance
with subparagraph (C); and
(ii) detailed project reports in accordance with
subparagraph (D).
(C) Annual ecosystem program plan.--
(i) In general.--Not later than October 1 of each year,
with respect to each ecosystem restoration action carried out
using Federal funds under this title, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Governor, shall submit to the
appropriate authorizing committees of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an annual ecosystem program plan
report.
(ii) Purposes.--The purposes of the report are--

(I) to describe the projects and programs to implement this
subsection in the following fiscal year; and
(II) to establish priorities for funding the projects and
programs for subsequent fiscal years.

(iii) Contents.--The report shall describe--

(I) the goals and objectives of the programs and projects;
(II) program accomplishments;
(III) major activities of the programs;
(IV) the Federal agencies involved in each project or
program identified in the plan and the cost-share
arrangements with cooperating agencies;
(V) 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) implementation schedules and budgets;
(VII) existing monitoring programs and performance
measures;
(VIII) the status and effectiveness of measures to minimize
the impacts of the program on agricultural land; and
(IX) a description of expected benefits of the restoration
program relative to the cost.

(iv) Special rule for land acquisition using federal
funds.--For each ecosystem restoration project involving land
acquisition using Federal funds under this title, the
Secretary shall--

(I) identify the specific parcels to be acquired in the
annual ecosystem program plan report under this subparagraph;
or
(II) not later than 150 days before the project is
approved, provide to the appropriate authorizing committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the United
States Senators from the State, and the United States
Representative whose district would be affected, notice of
any such proposed land acquisition using Federal funds under
this title submitted to the Federal or State agency.

(D) Detailed project reports.--
(i) In general.--In the case of each ecosystem restoration
program or project funded under this title that is not
specifically identified in an annual ecosystem program plan
under subparagraph (C), not later than 45 days prior to
approval, the Secretary, in coordination with the State,
shall submit to the appropriate authorizing committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives recommendations on
the proposed program or project.
(ii) Contents.--The recommendations shall--

(I) describe the selection of the program or project,
including the level of public involvement and independent
science review;
(II) describe the goals, objectives, and implementation
schedule of the program or project, and the extent to which
the program or project addresses regional and programmatic
goals and priorities;
(III) describe the monitoring plans and performance
measures that will be used for evaluating the performance of
the proposed program or project;
(IV) identify any cost-sharing arrangements with
cooperating entities;
(V) identify how the proposed program or project will
comply with all applicable Federal and State laws, including
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.); and
(VI) in the case of any program or project involving the
acquisition of private land using Federal funds under this
title--

(aa) describe the process and timing of notification of
interested members of the public and local governments;
(bb) describe the measures taken to minimize impacts on
agricultural land pursuant to the Record of Decision; and

[[Page H8227]]

(cc) include preliminary management plans for all
properties to be acquired with Federal funds, including an
overview of existing conditions (including habitat types in
the affected project area), the expected ecological benefits,
preliminary cost estimates, and implementation schedules.
(7) Watersheds.--Activities under this paragraph consist
of--
(A) building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds
affecting the Delta system;
(B) technical assistance for watershed assessments and
management plans; and
(C) developing and implementing locally-based watershed
conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
(8) Water quality.--Activities under this paragraph consist
of--
(A) addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley
to improve downstream water quality (including habitat
restoration projects that improve water quality) if--
(i) a plan is in place for monitoring downstream water
quality improvements; and
(ii) State and local agencies are consulted on the
activities to be funded;

except that no right, benefit, or privilege is created as a
result of this subparagraph;
(B) implementation of source control programs in the Delta
and its tributaries;
(C) 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;
(D) investing in treatment technology demonstration
projects;
(E) controlling runoff into the California aqueduct, the
Delta-Mendota Canal, and other similar conveyances;
(F) addressing water quality problems at the North Bay
Aqueduct;
(G) supporting and participating in the development of
projects to enable San Francisco Bay 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 utilized to meet the objectives of this subparagraph;
(H) development of water quality exchanges and other
programs to make high quality water available for urban and
other users;
(I) development and implementation of a plan to meet all
Delta water quality standards for which the Federal and State
water projects have responsibility;
(J) development of recommendations through science panels
and advisory council processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program goal of continuous improvement in water quality for
all uses; and
(K) projects that are consistent with the framework of the
water quality component of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(9) Science.--Activities under this paragraph consist of--
(A) supporting establishment and maintenance of an
independent science board, technical panels, and standing
boards to provide oversight and peer review of the Program;
(B) conducting expert evaluations and scientific
assessments of all Program elements;
(C) coordinating existing monitoring and scientific
research programs;
(D) developing and implementing adaptive management
experiments to test, refine, and improve scientific
understandings;
(E) establishing performance measures, and monitoring and
evaluating the performance of all Program elements; and
(F) preparing an annual science report.
(10) Diversification of water supplies.--Activities under
this paragraph 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 section 3406(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4723).
(e) New and Expanded Authorizations for Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The heads of the Federal agencies
described in this subsection are authorized to carry out the
activities described in subsection (f) during each of fiscal
years 2005 through 2010, in coordination with the Governor.
(2) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to carry out the activities described
in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of subsection (f).
(3) Administrator of the environmental protection agency
and the secretaries of agriculture and commerce.--The
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce are
authorized to carry out the activities described in
subsection (f)(4).
(4) Secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army is
authorized to carry out the activities described in
paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (f).
(f) Description of Activities Under New and Expanded
Authorizations.--
(1) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 109, not more than $184,000,000
may be expended for the following:
(A) San luis reservoir.--Funds may be expended for
feasibility studies, evaluation, and implementation of the
San Luis Reservoir lowpoint improvement project, except that
Federal participation in any construction of an expanded
Pacheco Reservoir shall be subject to future congressional
authorization.
(B) Intertie.--Funds may be expended for feasibility
studies and evaluation of increased capacity of the intertie
between the State Water Project California Aqueduct and the
Central Valley Project Delta Mendota Canal.
(C) Franks tract.--Funds may be expended for feasibility
studies and actions at Franks Tract to improve water quality
in the Delta.
(D) Clifton court forebay and the tracy pumping plant.--
Funds may be expended for feasibility studies and design of
fish screen and intake facilities at Clifton Court Forebay
and the Tracy Pumping Plant facilities.
(E) Drinking water intake facilities.--
(i) In general.--Funds may be expended for design and
construction of the relocation of drinking water intake
facilities to in-Delta water users.
(ii) Drinking water quality.--The Secretary shall
coordinate actions for relocating intake facilities on a time
schedule consistent with subsection (d)(2)(A)(i)(I)(bb) or
take other actions necessary to offset the degradation of
drinking water quality in the Delta due to the South Delta
Improvement Program.
(F) New melones reservoir.--
(i) In general.--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 the New Melones
Reservoir for meeting water quality standards and flow
objectives for which the Central Valley Project has
responsibility to assist in meeting allocations to Central
Valley Project contractors from the New Melones Project.
(ii) Purpose.--The authorization under this subparagraph is
solely meant to add flexibility for the Secretary to meet any
obligations of the Secretary 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.
(iii) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under section 109, not more than $30,000,000 may
be expended to carry out clause (i).
(G) Recirculation of export water.--Funds may be used to
conduct feasibility studies, evaluate, and, if feasible,
implement the recirculation of export water to reduce
salinity and improve dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin
River.
(2) Environmental water account.--
(A) In general.--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.
(B) Nonreimbursable federal expenditure.--Expenditures
under subparagraph (A) shall be considered a nonreimbursable
Federal expenditure in recognition of the payments of the
contractors of the Central Valley Project to the Restoration
Fund created by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(Title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706).
(C) Use of restoration fund.--
(i) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated for the
Restoration Fund for each fiscal year, an amount not to
exceed $10,000,000 for any fiscal year may be used to
implement the Environmental Water Account to the extent those
actions are consistent with the fish and wildlife habitat
restoration and improvement purposes of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act.
(ii) Accounting.--Any such use of the Restoration Fund
shall count toward the 33 percent of funds made available to
the Restoration Fund that, pursuant to section 3407(a) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, are otherwise
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
paragraphs (4) through (6), (10) through (18), and (20)
through (22) of section 3406(b) of that Act.
(iii) Federal funding.--The $10,000,000 limitation on the
use of the Restoration Fund for the Environmental Water
Account under clause (i) does not limit the appropriate
amount of Federal funding for the Environmental Water
Account.
(3) Levee stability.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of implementing the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program within the Delta (as defined in Cal. Water
Code 12220)), the Secretary of the Army is authorized to
undertake the construction and implementation of levee
stability programs or projects for such purposes as flood
control, ecosystem restoration, water supply, water
conveyance, and water quality objectives.
(B) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that
describes the levee stability reconstruction projects and
priorities that will be carried out under this title during
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010.
(C) Small flood control projects.--Notwithstanding the
project purpose, the authority granted under section 205 of
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) shall apply to
each project authorized under this paragraph.
(D) Projects.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
under section 109, not more than $90,000,000 may be expended
to--
(i) reconstruct Delta levees to a base level of protection
(also known as the ``Public Law 84-99 standard'');
(ii) enhance the stability of levees that have particular
importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special
Improvement Projects Program;
(iii) develop best management practices to control and
reverse land subsidence on Delta islands;

[[Page H8228]]

(iv) develop a Delta Levee Emergency Management and
Response Plan that will enhance the ability of Federal,
State, and local agencies to rapidly respond to levee
emergencies;
(v) develop a Delta Risk Management Strategy after
assessing the consequences of Delta levee failure from
floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes;
(vi) reconstruct Delta levees using, to the maximum extent
practicable, dredged materials from the Sacramento River, the
San Joaquin River, and the San Francisco Bay in
reconstructing Delta levees;
(vii) coordinate Delta levee projects with flood
management, ecosystem restoration, and levee protection
projects of the lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne
River floodway improvements and other projects under the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Comprehensive Study; and
(viii) evaluate and, if appropriate, rehabilitate the
Suisun Marsh levees.
(4) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--
(A) In general.--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.
(B) Program-wide activities.--Of the amount referred to in
subparagraph (A), not less than 50 percent of the
appropriated amount shall be provided to the California Bay-
Delta Authority to carry out Program-wide management,
oversight, and coordination activities.

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 planning and 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) Governance.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the Calfed Bay-Delta
Program, the Secretary and the Federal agency heads are
authorized to participate as nonvoting members of the
California Bay-Delta Authority, as established in the
California Bay-Delta Authority Act (Cal. Water Code
Sec. 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.
(2) Relationship to federal law and agencies.--Nothing in
this subsection shall preempt or otherwise affect any Federal
law or limit the statutory authority of any Federal agency.
(3) California bay-delta authority.--
(A) Advisory committee.--The California Bay-Delta Authority
shall not be considered an advisory committee within the
meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.).
(B) Financial interest.--The financial interests of the
California Bay-Delta Authority shall not be imputed to any
Federal official participating in the Authority.
(C) Ethics requirements.--A Federal official participating
in the California Bay-Delta Authority shall remain subject to
Federal financial disclosure and conflict of interest laws
and shall not be subject to State financial disclosure and
conflict of interest laws.
(e) Environmental Justice.--The Federal agencies,
consistent with Executive Order 12898 (59 Fed. Reg. 7629),
should continue to collaborate with State agencies 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.
(f) 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.

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) or section 103(d)(1)(B);
and
(C) includes any revised schedule prepared under subsection
(b) or section 103(d)(1)(B)(iii)(II).
(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;
(ii) water quality, including--

(I) the water quality targets described in section 2.2.9 of
the Record of Decision; and
(II) 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;
(ix) water supply reliability (including new firm yield),
including progress in achieving the water supply targets
described in section 2.2.4 of the Record of Decision and any
pending actions that may affect the ability of the Calfed
Bay-Delta Program to achieve those targets; and
(x) the uses and assets of the environmental water account
described in section 2.2.7 of the Record of Decision;
(E) Program goals, current schedules, and relevant
financing agreements, including funding levels necessary to
achieve completion of the feasibility studies and
environmental documentation for the surface storage projects
identified in section 103 by not later than September 30,
2008;
(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;
(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;
(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
(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 determines 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 and the Governor, in coordination
with 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 intent of 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 appropriate 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 subsections (b) through (f) of section
103.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after submission of the
budget of the President to Congress, the Director of the
Office of Management

[[Page H8229]]

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 subsections
(b) through (f) of section 103; and
(4) a listing of all projects to be undertaken in the
upcoming fiscal year with the Federal portion of funds for
activities under subsections (b) through (f) of section 103.

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 2010 in the aggregate, as set forth in the
Record of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent.
(b) Payment for Benefits.--The Secretary shall ensure that
all beneficiaries, including beneficiaries of environmental
restoration and other Calfed program elements, shall pay for
the benefit received from all projects or activities carried
out under the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
(c) Integrated Resource Planning.--Federal expenditures for
the Calfed Bay-Delta Program shall be implemented in a manner
that encourages 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;
(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; or
(5) alters or modifies any provision of existing Federal
law, except as specifically provided in this title.

SEC. 109. 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 subsections (e) and (f) of section
103 $389,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2010, to remain available until expended.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 201. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

Not later than December 31, 2006, the Secretary of the
Interior, in coordination with the State of California and
the Salton Sea Authority, shall complete a feasibility study
on a preferred alternative for Salton Sea restoration.

SEC. 202. ALDER CREEK WATER STORAGE AND CONSERVATION PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--Pursuant to Federal reclamation law (the Act of
June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts
supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et
seq.)), the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this
section as the ``Secretary''), through the Bureau of
Reclamation, and in consultation and cooperation with the El
Dorado Irrigation District, is authorized to conduct a study
to determine the feasibility of constructing a project on
Alder Creek in El Dorado County, California, to store water
and provide water supplies during dry and critically dry
years for consumptive use, recreation, in-stream flows,
irrigation, and power production.
(b) Report.--
(1) Transmission.--On completion of the study authorized by
subsection (a), the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report containing the results of the study.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall contain
appropriate cost sharing options for the implementation of
the project based on the use and possible allocation of any
stored water.
(3) Use of available materials.--In developing the report
under this section, the Secretary shall use reports and any
other relevant information supplied by the El Dorado
Irrigation District.
(c) Cost Share.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of the
feasibility study authorized by this section shall not exceed
50 percent of the total cost of the study.
(2) In-kind contribution for non-federal share.--The
Secretary may accept as part of the non-Federal cost share
the contribution such in-kind services by the El Dorado
Irrigation District as the Secretary determines will
contribute to the conduct and completion of the study.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

SEC. 203. FOLSOM RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE
AUTHORIZATION.

Section 1(c) of Public Law 105-295 (112 Stat. 2820) (as
amended by section 219(b) of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat.
1853)) is amended in the second sentence by striking
``$3,500,000'' and inserting ``$6,250,000''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

General Leave

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material in the record on H.R. 2828, the bill
now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today's consideration of this historic bill is a giant step forward
in resolving California's water supply problems. This legislation is
proof that developing our water supplies is a bipartisan endeavor.
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the original author of the bill, Senator
Feinstein, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Water and Power,
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), and others have
worked constructively to reach agreement with our Senate colleagues
since the bill passed out of the House.
The original intent of Calfed was to provide balance to a complex
water delivery system to ensure everyone gets better together. That is
what this bill does. H.R. 2828, as amended, simply and truly ensures
that water quality, water supply and reliability, environmental
restoration, fisheries protection, recreational values, and others all
advance together. We have made significant progress in resolving the
tough issues to bring before this chamber a bill that works for all
those involved.
This bill makes historic strides in water quality improvements
throughout California and brings together the collective efforts of all
water users to provide cleaner water for everyone. The importance in
moving the program forward with balanced implementation cannot be
overemphasized. It is the very essence of the bill as now amended.
Specifically, balanced implementation for the first time under this
bill creates storage as the linchpin for implementation of all Calfed
elements. Across the board, newer and larger facilities are needed to
store the excess flows now running to the ocean for later use by
growing populations and the environment. Actions are necessary now to
secure water and provide better water supplies for future generations
of Californians. This bill ensures that the program will be carried out
in balance with new water storage or else the entire program will
simply not exist. To reiterate, new water storage is the linchpin of
the entire program. Without it, we cannot achieve our goals of a
balanced program.
My colleagues in the House and Senate have brought ultimate
resolution to this bipartisan effort, and I urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
for their assistance, and leadership, in moving this legislation, along
with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) from our side of
the aisle. I also want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein for
helping to get this successfully through the Senate.
I just want to raise a couple of points, and that is that this past
summer, when an earlier version of this legislation was on the House
floor, I offered a motion, along with the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher) to correct what I believed was a fatal flaw in that
legislation, the so-called preauthorization provision of the House,
that would have granted a

[[Page H8230]]

blank check to Federal agencies to spend billions of dollars on dams
and other projects in California. It was our strong belief that this
provision would in fact never pass the Senate; it would become
controversial and bog down this matter in the legislative process.
Fortunately, that provision of this legislation was removed at the
insistence of members of the Senate. And the discussion that somehow,
if we removed it, it would blow up the Calfed program has turned out to
be the opposite. The removal of that has allowed Senators from other
parts of the country to let us proceed for this long overdue
legislation and hold together the coalition that was put together in
the House in support of this legislation on both sides of the aisle.
Again, I want to thank all of the tireless efforts that Senator
Feinstein put into negotiating this legislation in the Senate. There is
no question this was most difficult for the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert) in the House. I just asked him whether or not various
Members of the House were happy, and he told me happiness was not the
test in this legislation, but perhaps relative happiness was the test.
And I think maybe, that being the goal, we have put together support
for this legislation. And I want to thank him for those negotiations.
The bill we are considering today contains one complicated provision
having to do with the balance in the Calfed program. Concerns have been
raised that the finding of imbalance in this provision would be
disruptive to the Calfed program. This should not be the case. Congress
might indeed exercise its prerogative and refuse to authorize a surface
storage project if a less expensive or less damaging water supply
alternative exists. That action would trigger this rebalancing
provision, which includes a specific remedy and report to the Congress
that should include those alternative supplies. As in the case of
surface storage facilities, these alternative water supplies should be
financed by the principle of ``beneficiary pays,'' just like every
other aspect of the Calfed program.
Finally, it is important to note that the bill reflects the fact that
ecosystem restoration and several other Calfed activities, that have
not received new authorization in this bill, are already authorized
under Federal law. As the program moves forward, the authorization will
include the balanced funding for these program elements as well.
Again, I want to thank all of the members of the Committee on
Resources, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who we share
areas covering the great Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in our State, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was able to get some people
to slow down and give some serious consideration to the problems that
have plagued the users of the delta, both the agricultural interests
and our municipal users and the environmental concerns in the delta to
make sure that in fact we could come up with the most balanced program
possible to meet all of those needs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time,
and I would like to build on the remarks of my friend from Martinez by
saying that I am extraordinarily happy that everyone else is relatively
happy over this very important piece of legislation. I am happy because
my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) have worked so closely with the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano), and others.
Focusing on the Bay-Delta region is something that has been a
priority for many, many years, and it is something that will benefit
not only Californians, but it will benefit us regionally.
I also want to join in extending congratulations to our California
colleague Dianne Feinstein, and of course our friend Senator Pete
Domenici, who worked hard and long in fashioning this. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) has been championing this effort for
many, many years.
One other word of thanks has to go out on this, and I know some
people will cringe when I say this, Mr. Speaker, but exactly 1 year ago
tomorrow, the people of California, by an overwhelming margin, chose to
recall the governor and elect Arnold Swarzenegger as our new governor.
That happened exactly 1 year ago. And from that campaign forward, this
has been a very high priority for Governor Swarzenegger.
We have seen in California huge geographic disagreement over the
issue of water. And it has taken a long period of time for our State,
and there are often so many jokes about what happens to California
water and disagreements, almost a civil war on this issue of water
between the north and the south, and to be able to focus on this Calfed
issue in a bipartisan way and to address the regional concerns is
something that is virtually unprecedented.
So I would like to argue that it took the leadership not only of
Arnold Swarzenegger but of this tremendous coalition here in the House
of Representatives, and I think it will go a long way towards
addressing the very important agriculture needs and the economic needs
of our State. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
once again for his strong support in this effort.

{time} 1400

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) who has been very
active in this matter for several years.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828,
the bill to reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I certainly
associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, with the exception
of Chairman Dreier's. I never saw the Governor at our meetings. I wish
he had been. It would have helped. I would like to thank my good friend
and colleague from California (Mr. Calvert). His tireless efforts
during the past two sessions of Congress to bring all CALFED
stakeholders to the table and resolve several complex issues relating
to California water management have paid off.
I also would like to thank and recognize the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and especially Senators Feinstein,
Boxer, and Domenici for their excellent assistance while we worked to
move this legislation throughout the 108th Congress.
The State of California for the past several years has also been
operating under the most restrictive allocation of Colorado River water
in history. We have been, rightfully so, told by the Interior
Department that we need to reduce our water take from the river by
800,000 acre-feet by the year 2016.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this final version of H.R. 2828
addresses the current severe drought situation by including strong
water-use efficiency language that would enable Southern California to
take less water from Colorado River and the fragile bay-delta ecosystem
through recycling and restoring our groundwater supply. As a former
local and State-elected official, I have learned firsthand how
groundwater reclamation activities combined with recycling efforts
solved problems at the local level.
Now, as a Member of Congress, I have also learned that these projects
commonly referred to, and everybody knows them as title XVI, title XVI
projects, provide solutions to some of the most challenging community
issues we face today and will confront tomorrow, not only in Southern
California but throughout the western States.
Mr. Speaker, the key to solving California's water problems is in
building partnerships. I sincerely appreciate the partnership and
progress that we have all made on this legislation since its
introduction last fall. I look forward to the enactment of H.R. 2828.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Nunes).

[[Page H8231]]

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, it is really a privilege to stand up today
and thank all of my colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill.
This has been one of these bills in Congress that has really been a
California Member bipartisan effort that we have worked with both
Republicans and Democrats to come forth with a compromise on such tough
language dealing with water. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) should
be thanked for holding hearings throughout the State of California last
year leading up to this language.
We have strong commitments on storage. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) mentioned Governor Schwarzenegger's support on storage.
This is part of the overall agreement that has been achieved not only
through this bill but through other agreements that have been made
outside it because of this bill passing today on the floor of the
House.
As we move forward, it is important for the folks in the United
States and all over California to realize as California grows to 35, 40
million people, we have to have new water storage. This bill lays the
groundwork for that. We are going to be working hard with the
appropriators to continue to move forward on the storage aspects and
the funding for the studies and obviously with our colleagues in the
Senate, Dianne Feinstein, who has done a phenomenal job in moving this
language forward.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to vote
in support of reasonable and responsible CALFED legislation. I want to
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano), and especially the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) for their leadership and especially the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert)
for acceding to the Senate language.
As I said when the House first considered this legislation this
summer, it is well past time that the State of California and the
Federal Government get to work in active partnership to restore the
delta's ecosystem and meet our State's growing water needs.
For too many years, Mr. Speaker, because agreement was not reached,
California lost tens of millions of dollars which could have been used
to begin work on these vitally important projects. In fiscal years
2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, zero was appropriated for the CALFED
projects. We could not allow this to continue. And so I am glad today
we are considering the Senate version of this measure, ushered through
by the hard work of our senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein.
This bill preserves the existing record of decision, strips the
divisive preauthorization language, and best balances the vital water
interests in our region. Fortunately, today's legislation will make new
water projects subject to the critical public review and public
participation process which the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and I have been fighting for, which will secure the integrity
of the CALFED program into the future.
Under an open process and through this renewed Federal-State
partnership, we can begin to address issues of water supply
restoration, ecosystem restoration, and water-quality enhancement so
vital to the future of California. As the sixth largest economy in the
world, as home to some of the world's most unique, yet endangered,
species and ecosystems, and as a major key to the economic strength of
our Nation, it is critical that we endeavor to address our State's
aging water infrastructure and diminishing resources. The CALFED
program will allow us to do so. I am pleased to join my California
colleagues in supporting it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of the legislation.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is a giant step
forward in resolving California's water supply problems. Our water
security is a critically important issue. In California alone in the
last 2 decades, the population has grown over 30 percent while the
water supply in storage has increased by a mere 2 percent. Over the
next 15 years, California must reduce its dependence on the Colorado
River by 15 percent while the population in California is projected to
grow by yet another 30 percent. California's Department of Water
Resources estimates that the gap between water supply and demand in the
State will total 2.4 million acre-feet in normal years of rainfall and
up to 6.2 million acre-feet in drought years. When you consider that a
family of five uses an average of one acre-foot of water per year, it
is not that difficult to imagine how destabilizing such shortages would
be to California and to other western States.
We have come a long way over the last few years in assuring a
reliable water supply for California. Since I have been chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power, we have conducted many field hearings
in California, legislative hearings here in Washington, markups and too
many meetings to count to get to where we are today. Today's bill is a
culmination of the work and deliberation by many of us over the years.
Since 1995, I have worked to bring certainty and a balanced road map
for water use in California and the West. Since this bill passed the
House several months ago, I have worked with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), Senator Feinstein, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and, of course, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and many others who have worked hard to
bring this bill to the floor.
The original intent of CALFED was to provide a balance to a complex
water delivery system. H.R. 2828 achieves this goal. Under this bill,
the environment, recreation, drinking water, agriculture, and industry
all get better together. As our distinguished colleague from California
(Mr. Pombo) has stated, this bill makes historic strides in water-
quality improvements throughout the entire State of California.
Improved water quality helps everybody across the board. We also create
new water supplies for Northern and Southern California, and we enhance
surface storage to improve our water quality and supply.
Lastly, I want to thank Governor Schwarzenegger's participation
recently to assure us that these feasibility reports that are in the
record of decision will move forward where we can have a balanced and
completed project and that we can meet our future with assurance. I
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Again, I want to rise in support of this legislation, but I do want
to note some concurrent problems that concern me with respect to this
legislation because the goals of this legislation were to strike a
balance in the operation of this water system, a balance in the
development of facilities and the utilization of this water between the
consumption of this water, whether it be in industry or whether it be
in the agricultural industry or in our municipalities or for the
environment, to make sure that there was balance to those efforts. I
think to the extent it was practicable, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert) and others have worked that balance out.
I am concerned that as we get ready to pass this legislation and send
it to the President, we now see other activities that are taking place
along at the same time, and, that is, we see the emergence now of the
operations criteria and plan which is the new document that sets the
stage for California's most far-reaching, according to the Sacramento
Bee, the most far-reaching plumbing shifts in a decade.
Under the plan, water contractors would increase the pumping from the
very same delta that this legislation is designed to help protect and
preserve both for its local economies, for its agricultural industries
and for its environmental assets, would increase the pumping from the
delta by some 27 percent to Southern California.

[[Page H8232]]

The suggestion is that that has to be done. Part of it is because
there are contracts that have to be met. We know that many of these
contracts are up currently for renewal in a number of the water
districts south of the delta. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal
Government has within its authority to modify those contracts. All of
the evidence suggests that they are not prepared to do that, that they
are going to maximize the water deliveries under those contracts even
though those contracts envisioned a water delivery at a time that
California had 20 million fewer people than it does today and when the
demands on water north of the delta are different today than they were
then. They are not going to modify those contracts, and they are going
to try, I think, contrary to the law, they are going to try to extend
those contracts for another 40 years.
The fact of the matter is that that is contrary to the protection of
this Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and as outlined in this new
operations criteria means less water flowing into San Francisco Bay.
After a decades-long struggle to protect San Francisco Bay, you can
start to see the reignition of a whole series of battles starting to
take place because there is this rush by the State administration and
the Federal Government to maximize the amount of water that can be sent
south.
The concern is that when we have tried to make sure that all of the
evidence was on the table, with both of our Senators and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and other members of the
California delegation, we asked for a continuation of the public
hearings on these contract terms, the bureau has ignored our request.
When we asked the bureau to extend that public comment period until
those important questions were answered, the bureau ignored our
request.
What worries me is this ignoring of the public interest, of the
public input into this decision now fits into what we now see, that the
political operations within NOAA and the scientists who are there to
develop the standards for the protections of the salmon runs in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, in the American River, we now see,
according again to the Sacramento Bee this last weekend, that there is
an overriding of the setting of those standards in terms of the
adequate water flows and releases that are necessary to protect those
endangered runs of salmon. We see that that is now being done for
political reasons.
What worries me the most is this is the same cast of characters that
arbitrarily and capriciously in the court case, it was determined,
overrode the scientists on the Klamath River and led to one of the
largest kill-offs of salmon in the history of the west coast, if not
the largest, because they decided that they did not want to live with
good science, they decided they would override it.
So all of a sudden as we pass CALFED today, we see that in fact the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, the American River,
maybe the runs in the Sacramento River, the fisheries runs there, may
be more imperiled than at any time in history.
Why is that happening? Because what we see in spite of the agreements
of cooperation, of balancing that we see in the CALFED, we see there
starting to be a repetition of the same old habits which is to try and
maximize the pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to send it
south for the purposes of fulfilling these contracts or other needs.
My concern is that at a time when the chairman really held up this
process until such time as the delta water agencies and others could
come in and make sure what the impacts were going to be on delta water
quality, on delta usage, we now see a parallel process taking place
that has all of the earmarks of another devastating blow to delta water
quality, to the usages in the delta, to the protection of the
environment, and to the protection of the delta economy.

{time} 1415

I raise these at this time because, as we celebrate the long effort
and the successful effort with the passage in this House of the CALFED
legislation, we see that the forces who continue to have a design on
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, on the impacts on San Francisco Bay
by increasing the diversions from this very complicated and fragile
environment, we see that they never rest. And they are back now,
apparently with the cooperation of the Schwarzenegger administration in
Sacramento, with the cooperation of the Bush administration, in fact,
with not only the cooperation of the Bush administration but the Bush
administration's political appointees now coming in and overriding the
scientists who have done the studies designed to protect the delta and
protect its fisheries.
So I guess the bottom line and the end of this story is, there is an
awful lot of work that remains to be done. There is an awful lot of
concern that we have over the long-term protection of the delta, and I
would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) would look at
these articles that are in the ``Sacramento Bee'' because they raise
the most serious concerns about our economy and about our environment.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles that I alluded to.

[From sacbee.com, Oct. 2, 2004]

Rewrite Softens Report on Risks to Fish

(By Stuart Leavenworth)

Officials at a federal fisheries agency ordered their
biologists to revise a report on salmon and other endangered
fish so that more water can be shipped to Southern California
from the Delta, according to interviews and internal agency
documents obtained by The Bee.
Biologists with NOAA Fisheries, an arm of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded in August
that a plan to pump more water through the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta could jeopardize endangered salmon and other
fish.
NOAA administrators in Long Beach, however, overruled the
biologists and supervised a rewriting of their analysis.
That, in turn, removed the last major obstacle to a plan that
could send more water south, affecting how much is reserved
in Northern California, including for salmon in the American
River.
NOAA officials say the revisions were justified. Agency
biologists made some errors and ``unsubstantiated
conclusions'' in their original draft, said James Lecky, an
agency administrator in Long Beach who ordered the revisions.
Some agency employees, however, say some of the changes had
no basis in science and substantially weaken protections for
endangered winter-run salmon, steelhead trout and other fish.
``I haven't seen anything this bad at NOAA since working
here,'' said one agency biologist who asked that his name not
be used. ``The Sacramento office (of NOAA Fisheries) is
totally demoralized.''
At issue is a state-federal plan for operating the massive
network of reservoirs, aqueducts and pumping plants that move
water around California. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and
state Department of Water Resources are planning major
changes for those facilities, partly to free up water that
can be shipped through the Delta.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave its blessing to the
plan in August, but NOAA Fisheries has sought extensions in
releasing its own analysis.
Documents obtained by The Bee explain why.
In August, NOAA biologists issued a draft stating that the
plan ``is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
Sacramento winter-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley
Steelhead,'' as well as spring-run salmon.
The documents outlined several measures the Bureau of
Reclamation could adopt to reduce impacts on fish, but the
document was never signed.
Instead, Lecky delivered the draft to his counterparts in
the Bureau of Reclamation, who offered suggestions on
revisions, he said.
Lecky said such document sharing is commonplace as federal
agencies undergo what is known as a consultation under the
Endangered Species Act. NOAA officials wanted to ensure they
had appropriately interpreted the bureau's plans, he said,
and receive feedback on their own analysis.
A copy of NOAA's latest draft, however, shows that
administrators have altered the report in ways that go beyond
mere word changes.
The updated version, 289 pages and dated Sept. 27, no
longer concludes that winter-run salmon or other fish could
face extinction by the extra water diversions by state and
federal facilities.
The report concludes that the new operations would likely
reduce the juvenile population of winter-run salmon by 5
percent to 22 percent, but says that agencies can help
minimize those losses by monitoring and adapting.
The latest version also softens the wording for how the
Bureau of Reclamation can avoid future impacts on fish.
In the original report, NOAA biologists called on the
Bureau of Reclamation to reserve 450,000 to 600,000 acre-feet
of water in Folsom Lake by September to provide adequate
supplies for returning salmon and steelhead.
The latest version changes the wording from ``shall
maintain'' to ``shall target'' the extra water.
In addition, the latest draft no longer calls for a minimum
flow standard for the American River, as the original did.
The state

[[Page H8233]]

Water Resources Control Board called for an American River
flow standard in 1988, but federal officials haven't yet
agreed to one.
A former state official who now works for a leading
environmental group reviewed the two versions and said he was
stunned by the revisions.
``The September draft guts the minimal protections that
were in the earlier version,'' said Jonas Minton, a former
deputy secretary for the Department of Water Resources. ``The
new version includes commitments to talk instead of
commitments to protect fish.''
Minton, who now works for the Planning and Conservation
League, agreed that supervisors often make routine changes to
a scientific document. ``It's an entirely different thing to
change science for political purposes,'' he said.
In an interview, NOAA's Lecky disputed that political
appointees had pressed for changes. Everything has been
handled within NOAA's Southwest Regional Office in Long
Beach, he said.
Lecky declined to comment further on the revisions, saying
The Bee had obtained a ``predecisional document'' that was
subject to further review. Sources say a final version could
be released next week.
Formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA Fisheries enforces the Endangered Species Act for fish
that spend part of their lives in the ocean, such as salmon.
In recent years, NOAA has become embroiled in several
controversies over water allocations and fish.
In 2002, NOAA biologist Michael Kelly warned that the
Reclamation Bureau's water plans in Oregon could lead to fish
kills downstream on the Klamath River. Later that year, warm
water and disease killed about 77,000 returning salmon,
according to a report by the California Department of Fish
and Game.
Kelly later resigned from NOAA after another disagreement
with Lecky.
In recent months, the Bureau of Reclamation has been
pushing to sign long-term contracts with irrigation districts
and finalize plans for shipping more water through the Delta.
Some of California's most powerful groups--including the
Chamber of Commerce, Westlands Water District and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--are
lobbying for extra water.
Environmentalists suspect this pressure prompted some of
NOAA's recent actions, although they acknowledge they can't
prove it.
Bureau of Reclamation officials say the public will have
full opportunity to comment on any changes in water
operations. The Bureau and the Department of Water Resources
have scheduled an informational meeting in Sacramento on
Thursday from 9 a.m. to noon at the Best Western Expo Inn,
1413 Howe Ave.
____

[From sacbee.com, Sept. 26, 2004]

Major Shift Mapped for Delta Water

(By Stuart Leavenworth)

Under pressure from some of California's biggest cities and
farm districts, federal and state officials are planning
major changes in how water is stored and distributed across
the state, including increased pumping of supplies from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The proposed changes, outlines in an obscure state-federal
document called the Operations Criteria and Plan, sets the
stage for California's most far-reaching plumbing shifts in a
decade. Under the plan, water contractors would increase
pumping from the Delta by 27 percent, sending more to
Southern California and the San Jaoquin Valley. Less water
would flow to the San Francisco Bay and less would be
reserved for endangered salmon during the driest of droughts.
Increased pumping from the Delta originally was envisioned
under Cal-Fed, a state-federal water collaboration launched
in 1994. But the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation unveiled other
proposals only recently, and those are coming under fire from
environmentalists, Delta farmers and sportfishing groups.
All sides agree the liquid power struggle will be a major
test of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his water lieutenant,
Lester Snow. Schwarzenegger has styled himself as a business-
friendly, pro-environmental governor who can solve entrenched
disputes. But solutions don't come easy in the Delta, where
there are symbolic shadings and big stakes attached to any
effort to move water around.
``The key decision-maker will be Governor Schwarzenegger,''
said Tom Graff, an Oakland-based lawyer for Environmental
Defense, a group that has fought past plans to increase water
exports from Northern California. ``At some point, he and his
appointees will have to decide if they uphold the
environmental commitments of Cal-Fed.''
Created with an eye toward raising all boats in the Delta,
Cal-Fed once was touted as a $8.6 billion ``fix'' for the
estuary. The program has multiple goals of increasing water
supplies for farms and cities while restoring fish hurt
partly by water diversions. It's still unclear if those goals
can be reconciled.
The largest estuary on the West Coast, the Delta has lost
roughly half its historic flow into San Francisco Bay because
of upstream water diversions. If state and federal officials
turn on the pumps at the wrong time, they can suck fish and
larvae toward and into the pumps. The diversions also can
worsen water quality for Delta farmers and the Contra Costa
Water Agency by drawing salt and bromides up the estuary.
In recent years, Cal-Fed has helped water managers
coordinate a complex system of raising or lowering pumping
rates to meet environmental demands. A special pool of
water--the Environmental Water Account--helps compensate
water districts hurt by unexpected restrictions on Delta
pumping.
Despite those successes, Cal-Fed has few vocal champions.
Water users say the program has spent about $500 million
buying potential habitat to help fish and wildlife but has
done little to prevent future water shortages.
Environmentalists say fish stocks remain a fraction of their
past numbers, and note that Delta water standards still are
violated.
Frustrated with Cal-Fed's open meetings and often plodding
process, California's big water users teamed up with state
and federal officials last August, and quietly negotiated
their own plan for increasing Delta pumping. It became known
as the Napa agreement.
For decades, the state Department of Water Resources and
the Bureau of Reclamation have maintained separate
reservoirs, separate aqueducts and separate pumping plants in
the Delta. Napa promised to change all that. For the first
time, state contractors would be able to store their water in
the federal government's big reservoirs. Federal contractors,
meanwhile, could ship some of their water through the state's
Harvey Banks Pumping Plant and its 11 massive electrical
pumps, which suck water 244 feet up in elevation and deliver
it to the California Aqueduct.
Integrating these water works hasn't been controversial;
the plan to increase pumping is. The Napa pact would allow
the Banks plant to ramp up its regular pumping rates about 27
percent, from 6,680 to 8,500 cubic feet per second. State
officials say the extra water would come from outflow to the
Bay.
The state's two largest water agencies--Westlands Water
District, with 570,000 acres in irrigation, and the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, with 18
million customers--stand to be major beneficiaries. Those
districts and others may end up gaining several hundred
thousand acre-feet of water, said Tim Quinn, a vice president
for Metropolitan.
In addition, the increased pumping capacity could lay the
groundwork for more sales of water from Northern California
rice farmers to Southern California.
To those excluded from the talks, the Napa meeting was less
a breakthrough than a backroom deal, and a betrayal of Cal-
Fed's principles.
Delta farm districts, environmental groups, sportfishing
interests and many midsize urban districts were not at the
table. At the urging of U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, and
state Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, the Napa signatories later
crafted side agreements with Delta farmers, who fear that
extra pumping could foul their water supply. But
environmentalists were not included.
``A lot of groups in the conservation sector are getting
ready to wash their hands of the Cal-Fed process,'' said
Steve Evans of Friends of the River, a Sacramento-based
conservation group. ``It is clear that major agencies are
acting outside of Cal-Fed. . . .''
Up until the last few years, irrigation districts in the
San Joaquin Valley were voicing the same complaints. Farmers
lost supplies when President George H.W. Bush signed the 1992
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, which allocated more
water for the environment. Many farmers were skeptical that
Cal-Fed would come to their aid.
In 2001, however, President George W. Bush took office and
agribusiness gained new clout. Interior Secretary Gale Norton
appointed Bennett Raley, a lawyer for Colorado ranchers, to
manage Western water issues. She also hired Jason Peltier, a
lobbyist for Central Valley irrigation districts, to handle
Cal-Fed.
Two years ago, farmers won back some of their water when
Bush and his appointees declined to appeal a court ruling
challenging implementation of the 1992 act. South-of-Delta
farmers now are pushing for extra water guarantees, said Thad
Bettner, deputy general manager of the Westlands Water
District, because they fear their existing supplies will be
lost as California cities grow.
If federal and state officials implement key parts of the
Napa pact, Westlands and other water exporters could see
immediate gains. Federal water for San Joaquin Valley
wildlife refuges could be moved through the state pumps,
freeing up more capacity in federal pumps for irrigation
supplies. In exchange, the federal Bureau of Reclamation
would assume some of the state's responsibilities for meeting
Bay-Delta flow requirements.
Quinn, the Metropolitan vice president, said increased
pumping would occur only when it wouldn't hurt fish and water
quality. He dismisses claims of a water grab by Southern
California, noting that Cal-Fed has long planned to increase
the capacity of the pumps.
Graff and other environmentalists, however, say it is clear
that Southern California is relying more heavily on the Delta
because of the Colorado River drought. Earlier this year,
Environmental Defense came across financial documents filed
by Metropolitan that show the agency plans to boost Delta
diversions to 1.7 million acre-feet by 2008, and has steadily
increased diversions the last several years.
``All this whining from urban water agencies about the
supposed lack of balance in

[[Page H8234]]

Cal-Fed is hogwash,'' said Evans. Metropolitan, he said, ``is
receiving nearly double the water they received just a few
years ago.''
Hoping to make the pumping plan more palatable, Cal-Fed has
come up with supplemental proposals to improve water quality
in the estuary, a fig leaf for Delta farmers and urban
agencies.
Environmentalists say those plans do little for fish, and
they are even more troubled by the Operating Plan and
Criteria, which shows how the Bureau of Reclamation expects
to meet future water demands.
According to that operating plan, the bureau proposes to
end decade-old protections for endangered winter-run salmon
in the upper reaches of the Sacramento River.
Winter-run salmon lost their historic spawning grounds when
the bureau built Shasta Dam in the 1930s. Surviving fish were
nearly wiped out during the drought of 1975-77, when the
bureau nearly emptied Shasta and warmed up the river.
After winter-run salmon were added to the federal
Endangered Species List in 1989, the agency was ordered to
carry over 1.9 million acre-feet of water in Shasta every
year. Those reserves ensure that salmon have cold water to
survive a drought, but they also hamper the bureau in meeting
its contract obligations.
This year, with pressure building on the bureau to ship
more water through the Delta, the agency is proposing to end
the carry-over storage requirement and reduce the stretch of
river where it must legally maintain cool water temperatures.
Reclamation officials contend they can protect salmon
without these hard-line restrictions. Marian Echeverria, a
spokeswoman for the bureau, said the agency now has access to
water sources that weren't available back in the early 1990s.
Even with those assurances, some environmentalists and
Delta farmers fear Northern California will bear the brunt of
the proposed changes. Delta farmers say their irrigation
supplies will become more salty as more freshwater is
shipping south.
``This process needs a whole lot more daylight,'' said Tom
Zuckerman, a lawyer for the Central Delta Water Agency. He
suspects federal officials are rushing the process so they
can sign new, long-term contracts with water districts by
year's end.
The outcome could hinge on NOAA Fisheries, a federal agency
charged with protecting endangered salmon and other ocean-
migrating fish. NOAA biologists initially wanted to issue
what is known as a ``jeopardy opinion'' under the Endangered
Species Plan. Such a ruling would have blocked the bureau's
plan, but NOAA hasn't yet issued a final decision.
Another wild card is Schwarzenegger and his director of
water resources, Snow, who worked as regional director of the
Bureau of Reclamation in the Clinton administration. Snow
says state and federal officials erred by not holding recent
public workshops on the operating plan. ``It wasn't very
artfully handled,'' he said in an interview last week.
Nonetheless, said Snow, critics are jumping the gun. The
Department of Water Resources, he said, is studying how
planned Delta diversions would affect fisheries and flows to
the Bay. The public will have ample opportunities to comment
on any final proposal, which would need to meet both federal
and state environmental laws, he said.
Snow said he also is awaiting the opinion from NOAA
Fisheries and will examine it closely.
``We will not stand by and allow a lessening of salmon
protections that will cause problems for the state,'' said
Snow. ``If NOAA Fisheries does something that gives the
bureau a free pass, we are going to catch that.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dooley), who has been involved in these water issues from the day he
came to Congress. And I thank him for his help and all of his years of
service in these years in the House on these issues of concern to our
State.
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert), as well as Senator Feinstein, for really puttingtogether a
bipartisan product that is in the interest of all Californians.
All too often in the past, during my tenure at Congress, when we had
a California water bill on the floor, a lot of our colleagues would
shudder because oftentimes that would end up in almost a civil war
among the Californians because California water issues have been
difficult to solve. It has been difficult to strike that balance
between providing for enhancement of the environment and still meeting
the economic needs of our State through our agriculture sector as well
as our municipal sector.
That is what is important about this bill, because it is a rare
occasion, I hope marking a turning point, where we are solving our
problems by coming together, understanding that we can provide greater
certainty in the delivery of water to enhance the environment as well
as to expand our economy by finding ways in which we can provide for
greater conservation, greater storage, and more efficient management of
our water supplies.
I think that this, hopefully, is a turning point because all too
often in the past we have seen too many of the interests in California
water that have retreated to the courts, that have relied on the courts
to try to solve some of the difficult choices that we have to make. And
I think the leadership that was demonstrated by the parties that I
mentioned earlier hopefully is a call to action among all the interests
impacted by California water, that they need to come together in a
cooperative and a constructive manner to try to build upon this effort
to ensure that we are going to have that balanced approach in utilizing
the water in the State of California that could enhance our environment
and, once again, ensure that we are providing the economic future which
is so important to the citizens of our State.
I rise in strong support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2828, the
Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act.
Passage today will finally enable this vitally important legislation,
long in the making, to be sent to the President for signature.
The Senate-passed version we have now before us merges many of the
provisions in the House bill with a handful of changes negotiated after
the House passed its version on July 9 of this year. It reflects a
careful balance and set of compromises that represent our best chance
for this bill becoming law this year.
The successful evolution of this bill is a credit to the leadership
of many of my colleagues in the California delegation. I want to give
special recognition, however, to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and
Representatives Pombo, Calvert, Napolitano and Cardoza for their
steadfast stewardship and commitment.
On a bipartisan basis, these and other Members worked long and hard
to bring parties together. We consulted a wide range of affected
stakeholders, both regional and national. We tried to bring a visionary
yet pragmatic approach to the management of California's water
resources. During each step of the legislative process, we tried to
improve on the bill and strengthen its base of support.
This bill authorizes $389 million for water projects in the CALFED
program over the six-year-period FY 2005 through 2010. It creates new
water supplies, improves water quality and reliability, and ensures
ecosystem restoration. It evenhandedly provides for California's
different water interests, implementing the CALFED program in a
balanced manner.
One area of difference between the House and Senate-passed bills
focused on the House provision that would have pre-authorized certain
water storage projects, subject only to a Congressional disapproval
resolution. I appreciate the interest of certain House Members to
expedite the very lengthy process now involved in getting water storage
projects from design to implementation. Nevertheless, the
preauthorization provision of the House bill was met in the Senate with
objections on both sides of the aisle and threatens to stand in the way
of this bill becoming law this year.
Instead of a pre-authorized provision, the Senate amendments
explicitly authorize groundwater storage and feasibility studies for
major new off-stream and expanded reservoirs, including the enlargement
of Los Vaqueros reservoir, the raise of Shasta Dam, Upper San Joaquin
surface storage, and Sites Reservoir. With these four storage projects,
California could acquire an additional 3.2 million acre feet of
storage.

In addition, the Senate amendments include new procedures and
safeguards if Congress fails to approve a storage project by the end of
the Congressional session following the submission to Congress of a
federal feasibility study. In such a case, the Secretary of Interior
must, within 180 days, make a finding of ``imbalance'' and report to
Congress on revised schedules and alternatives to rebalance the CALFED
Program.
Although the Senate amendment does not expedite the storage
authorization process as directly as the House bill attempted to do, it
is an improvement over the status quo. Moreover, an even larger point
must not be lost in this discussion.
Any water storage project, whether currently in the pipeline or
subject to the new authority in this bill, requires appropriated funds.
Due to the fact that Federal authorization for the CALFED program has
lapsed, federal appropriations are not currently being approved for
CALFED. This fact is disadvantaging water users and water projects
throughout California.
The time has come for Congress to reauthorize the CALFED program, and
allow

[[Page H8235]]

projects--for water quality, water supply, and fisheries protection--to
move forward.
I urge my colleagues to vote today in support of the Senate
amendments to H.R. 2828.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just in closing I want to thank all of my colleagues who were able to
work in a bipartisan manner to get this done. The gentleman from
California (Chairman Calvert) worked on this bill for a long time, and
before him the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) worked on this
bill, and there was a lot of work that went into making this happen.
And we all know that some of our colleagues were not as cooperative,
but I do appreciate those that were able to work with us and get this
done.
I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the passage of H.R.
2828 today.
Calfed reauthorization is an issue that Congress has debated for
years and years and today--as a result of numerous parties working
together--we are making significant strides toward increasing water
supply, quality and reliability for California.
This is an enormous accomplishment and I applaud Representatives
Pombo, Napolitano and Calvert and our esteemed Senator from California,
Senator Feinstein, for overcoming the numerous hurdles that have
prevented this issue from progressing in years past.
This proposal will greatly strengthen California's agricultural
economy and address the needs of a fast growing population by creating
additional surface storage projects.
This delicate balance, while difficult to achieve, is critical to the
success of Calfed.
Today, I urge my colleagues to support this measure because it will
set California on the path to a sustainable water supply for its
citizens, its economy and its environment.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2828, the
Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act. This
legislation, authored by my good friend, Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, is the result of many years of hard
work by the California water community to find a way to balance the
competing water needs of agriculture, the environment, and a growing
population.
My district in the Central Valley of California is a prime example of
these changing needs. In 1960, Kern County had a population of about
291,000 people and an agricultural base that produced commodities with
a farm gate value of $247 million. In 2000, those numbers had increased
to a population of 661,000 people and farm gate value approaching $2.5
billion. Much of this growth is due to the construction of the State
Water Project in the mid-1960's, but virtually no investment in that
all-important infrastructure has been made since that time. Our water
infrastructure requires attention and upgrading to continue supporting
California's agriculture economy, and H.R. 2828 provides for many of
these necessary improvements.
I congratulate all my colleagues from California who have worked
tirelessly to overcome regional differences and reconcile competing
priorities to ensure that this vital legislation is enacted.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
2828.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was
concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________