[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.

                          ____________________