[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 111 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5242-H5284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WESTERN WATER AND AMERICAN FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2898.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Wyoming?
[[Page H5243]]
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 362 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2898.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0913
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2898) to provide drought relief in the State of California, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the American West is in the midst of a
severe drought, especially central California. This problem demands
swift action, with tens of thousands of trees, plants, jobs, food, and
livelihoods at stake.
H.R. 2898 will help bring our Western water supply infrastructure
into the 21st century, making it more drought resistant. The bill also
addresses the manmade Federal decisions that are exacerbating the
drought.
H.R. 2898 ensures scientific transparency in Federal actions that are
literally taking water away from people that desperately need it, all
for questionable benefit of endangered fish.
The bill also requires the deployment of more effective management
tools like addressing the nonnative fish that are harming the
endangered fish.
{time} 0915
West-wide, the bill takes steps to build new water storage that is
crucial to the well-being of Western communities and economies. To
assist non-Federal projects, the bill creates a one-stop shop for water
storage permitting at the Bureau of Reclamation.
Oftentimes, Federal agencies overlap or conflict with each other when
it comes to permitting non-Federal facilities. This provision forces
them to sit down with one lead agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, to
resolve issues and expedite permitting.
For Federal projects, the bill creates a streamlined and transparent
process for the Bureau that mirrors the Army Corps' provisions in the
Water Resource Reform and Development Act of 2014, which was enacted by
overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress.
To offset the bill's implementation costs and finance new water
storage, the bill allows irrigation districts and water utilities to
prepay their share of the capital costs of Federal water projects.
Mr. Chairman, some water users are prohibited from paying off
contracts early. This is nonsensical. Congress has lifted the
restrictions in piecemeal fashion before, and it is time to dispense
with it altogether.
One way to efficiently construct new storage is to allow the Bureau
of Reclamation to make water storage improvements during the course of
making safety improvements. H.R. 2898 allows the Bureau to do just
that.
Finally, the bill prohibits the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture from holding public land permits hostage unless permittees
give up their State-endowed water rights. This will put a stop to the
Federal Government's repeated attempts to grab water rights at the
expense of State authority from the Forest Service's interim directive
for ski area permits to the Service's ill-fated groundwater directive.
Mr. Chairman, this bill takes a commonsense approach to solving water
problems in the West, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 8, 2015.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: I am writing concerning H.R. 2898,
the ``Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015.''
This legislation contains provisions within the Committee
on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your
having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite
this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on
Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being
done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so
will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of
conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the
subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and
in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of
this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, July 9, 2015.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 9, 2015, the Committee on
Natural Resources ordered reported with amendments H.R. 2898,
the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015. The
bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural
Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on
Agriculture.
I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be
discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it
may be scheduled expeditiously by the Majority Leader. This
discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as
precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a
conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your
request to have the Committee on Agriculture represented on
the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to
include this letter and any response in the bill report filed
by the Committee on Natural Resources as well as in the
Congressional Record to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for
your continued strong cooperation between our committees.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It was just last winter that we were here on the House floor talking
about another so-called drought bill that my Republican colleagues were
attempting to slam through the House within just a few days of its
introduction.
This time the bill has a different title, but it is pretty much the
same bill. We are back today to consider yet another bill that harms
West Coast fisheries and tribal interests, another bill that undermines
State law, another bill that micromanages the most complex water system
in the world in a way that benefits a select few at the expense of many
others across the State of California, another bill that is going
nowhere.
We have a SAP from the administration. We have a withering three-page
letter of opposition critiquing the bill from the Department of the
Interior. The two largest circulation papers in California have both
editorialized against it. The State of California is on record opposing
prior versions of this bill.
Now, unlike last year, when the House did not allow any amendments to
the bill, we are here today with 4 out of 5 Republican amendments made
in order and 4 out of 24 Democratic amendments made in order.
That may seem like marginal progress over the 113th Congress' very
closed process, but that is no way to do business and certainly no way
to get a bill signed into law. With something as complicated and
important as California water, we really should make sure everyone has
a say, and that is what Democrats have attempted to do. We have
introduced a drought response bill, H.R. 2983, which is a comprehensive
drought bill. It brings everyone to the table.
This bill had 6 weeks of public review before even being formally
introduced, resulting in substantial crowdsource changes to the bill.
Our water future deserves that kind of open debate and real solutions.
I have been joined by 34 cosponsors on that bill because it provides
both short- and long-term investments in water supply reliability, the
kind of tools that all Western States will need.
My bill includes significant resources to support farmworkers and
others who
[[Page H5244]]
are out of work, not just lipservice. And I submit that if my
Republican colleagues really care about the challenges faced by
farmworkers and others affected by this drought, they will join us in
backing real solutions that provide meaningful assistance in addition
to stretching our limited water supplies.
Our bill is supported by the Association of California Water
Agencies, California sanitation agencies, numerous other water
agencies, environmental groups and stakeholders, and both the L.A.
Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have editorialized in favor of
the Democratic alternative drought response bill and opposed to the
bill we are considering here today.
Mr. Chairman, let's have some hearings. Despite the importance of
this issue, we have held no legislative hearings on drought responses
in the 114th Congress, not on the majority's bill, not on my
alternative.
Let's have hearings on both bills. Let's see which one produces the
most water, which one produces that water more quickly, and which one
produces it more cost-effectively and more reliably.
I hope that someday, Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing real water
solutions in that spirit, vetted in an open hearing, that can actually
produce something that will be signed into law, instead of the same
tired, divisive ideas that pit our State's water users against each
other.
Now, a lot of people have asked me: Why do your Republican colleagues
refuse to have serious hearings on their water proposal? I think the
answer is pretty clear. Like its predecessors, we are here considering
a bill that, when it is exposed to public scrutiny, simply falls apart.
Here's what the Department of the Interior said last week in a letter
to our committee, in lieu of testimony, of course, because there was no
legislative hearing on the bill. They said: ``Instead of increasing
water supplies, H.R. 2898 dictates operational decisions and imposes an
additional new legal standard. Instead of saving water, this could
actually limit water supplies by creating new and confusing conflicts
with existing laws, thereby adding an unnecessary layer of complexity
to Federal and State project operations. As a result of this additional
standard, we believe H.R. 2898 will slow decisionmaking, generate
significant litigation, and limit the real-time operational flexibility
that is so critical to maximizing water delivery.''
Although the Pacific Fishery Management Council wasn't given an
opportunity to actually testify on this bill, again, because we had no
hearings, they opposed last year's version, and they wrote to us this
week to say that they are on record on what appears to be similar
legislation. Specifically, they are concerned about the bill's
provisions that redirect water away from salmon habitat.
The closure of the West Coast salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009
required $158 million in Federal disaster relief. And, sadly, the Rules
Committee did not allow a vote on our amendment to require a full
Pacific Fishery Management Council review of this legislation.
There is no question that this bill explicitly preempts State water
law, and it waives and weakens the application of bedrock Federal
environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and NEPA, but
the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on my amendment to protect
California water law from preemption nor my amendment to strengthen the
water rights protections in the bill. It seems that the issue of
states' rights is simply an inconvenient subject when it comes to
Republican water legislation.
Mr. Chairman, water is a complex subject, but it doesn't have to be
partisan combat. It doesn't have to scapegoat environmental laws or pit
one region against the other in a zero-sum game.
I chaired the California Assembly's Water Committee during the last
drought in 2009, and we did it the right way. We held lots of hearings.
We brought interests from all over the State together and, in the end,
although it was a lot of work, through that deliberative, transparent
process we produced comprehensive water legislation that was supported
by Republicans and Democrats from all corners of the State.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, a near unanimous California legislature
agreed on a multibillion-dollar water bond that has created significant
water reforms in full public view. If my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would just give up on the idea of ramming the same
divisive ideas through Congress every few months, we too might be able
to make some progress on solving water problems.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, droughts are nature's fault, but water
shortages are our fault. They are a deliberate choice we made nearly 40
years ago when we stopped building new dams. We haven't added a major
reservoir in California since 1979, while the population of our State
has nearly doubled.
Even before the drought, leftist policies created severe water
shortages in California's Central Valley, devastating the economy and
creating the spectacle of food lines in one of the most fertile
agricultural regions of our Nation.
For 4 years, the House has passed comprehensive legislation to
resolve this crisis before it became a crisis. For 4 years, Senate
Democrats blocked it; but the public has now awakened, and the Senate
has changed.
The voices we hear in opposition are the same voices that have
dominated Western water policy these past 40 years. We now know where
that leads.
This bill doesn't preempt California water law; it protects it by
forbidding State officials from fulfilling their threats to violate it.
It comes at the request of local water agencies that are sick and tired
of having their water expropriated by ideological zealots.
It is time to choose between two very different visions of water
policy. One is the nihilistic vision of the environmental left;
increasingly severe, government-induced shortages, forced rationing,
astronomical water prices, and a permanently declining quality of life
for our children who will be required to stretch and ration every drop
of water in their parched homes. The other is a vision of abundance, a
new era of clean, cheap, and plentiful water and hydroelectricity;
great new reservoirs to store water in wet years to assure plenty in
dry ones; a society whose children can enjoy the prosperity that
abundant water provides, including fresh and affordable groceries from
America's agricultural cornucopia.
Mr. Chairman, we choose abundance.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The alternative vision that we offer is certainly not one of
austerity and sacrifice; it is one of reality.
There was a time when the reclamation program from the Federal
Government proceeded on the assumption that rain follows the plow. It
was completely wishful, completely delusional, and we seem to be
hearing vestiges of that old argument even today.
What Democrats offer are real solutions--solutions that have been
underfunded by Republicans for too many years, solutions that will
generate more water and more water supply reliability than the
Republican alternative we are considering.
We continue to hear representations that are simply not correct. The
claim that we haven't built a major reservoir in California since 1979,
tell that to the folks that built Los Vaqueros Reservoir or Diamond
Valley Reservoir or many others.
We hear that the doubling of the population in the last few decades
is what is driving this crisis. Well, in fact, the urban centers where
that population has doubled have held their demand flat. The population
has gone up. The water consumption has not.
We continue to hear that this bill--remarkably, we continue to hear
that it doesn't preempt State law. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would refer
you simply to the CBO report at page 2, which recognizes that H.R. 2898
would impose intergovernmental mandates by preempting the ability of
the State of California to enforce its own water management and
wildlife preservation laws. There is no question that this bill
preempts State laws, and saving money by telling Federal agencies they
no longer have to comply with State laws is no way to make public
policy.
[[Page H5245]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the delta
region California (Mr. McNerney). He has been a champion on sustainable
management of our water resources, and I am pleased to have him with
us.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to
H.R. 2898.
Many of my colleagues here in Washington have told me they don't want
to get involved in the California water wars, and I don't blame them. I
don't want them to get involved in the California water wars, but this
legislation will do tremendous harm to the California delta, an area
that I am privileged to represent.
Let's start with the facts. California is experiencing its driest
year on record. In May, there was not even enough snowpack to measure.
The United States Drought Monitor measured that about 46 percent of
California is in an ``exceptional drought.''
The so-called drought bill does nothing to solve California's water
issues or address drought across the West. Instead, it preempts State
laws, reduces management flexibility, eliminates protection for salmon
and other endangered species, and rolls back our Nation's fundamental
environmental laws.
We need to look at real solutions and not waste time and resources
recycling old, bad ideas. Moving more water south doesn't answer our
problems. It hurts delta farmers and the salmon industry. We can't pick
and choose our economies. We need to fight for all of them.
Let's be clear. My Republican colleagues are basing a lot of their
arguments on the idea that environmental regulations send too much
water to the ocean that otherwise could be used by communities. But
according to the State Water Resources Control Board, in 2014, 72
percent of the delta outflow was required to control salinity so that
the delta's water supply did not become too salty for agriculture or
urban communities across the State.
{time} 0930
If we override these laws, permanent damage will result for
fishermen, farmers, families, and businesses throughout California.
What I don't understand is why our Republican colleagues keep fighting
against protections that preserve the quality of water for their
constituents.
The Department of the Interior also opposes this bill because it
would ``impede an effective and timely response to the continuing
drought while providing no additional water to hard-hit communities.''
And California doesn't want Federal legislation to ``weaken State and
Federal environmental protections . . . preempt State law . . . and
favor one region of the State over another,'' which is exactly what
this bill does.
We are a State known for innovation, and we have to support bold,
forward-thinking solutions that create new water and don't pit regions
of California against each other. We should be supporting water
efficiency, storage, reuse, recycling, water management, innovative
water projects, and long-term approaches to water shortages.
While this legislation will further disrupt a fragile delta and hurt
its local economy, I, along with my colleagues, will be pushing for
solutions that create more water and respond to the needs of the entire
State.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
Mr. McNERNEY. I want to ask my colleagues in the Great Lakes region
and the Florida Everglades to pay attention. This bill, if passed, will
set a new precedent for grabbing freshwater over any environmental
protections. Your water could be next.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2898.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mr. Chairman, we have heard today and will hear quite a bit more
claims from the opposition, and I think it is high time that we
reintroduce facts into the debate on California water.
My district is the source of much of California's water and home to
its largest reservoirs, just two of which can hold 8 million acre-feet,
enough for 32 million people for an entire year. This water is
delivered throughout the length of the State, and no other district
provides so much for so many.
However, even my constituents are facing mandatory rationing and
fallowed fields. I support this measure because it respects State water
rights and aids all Californians without favoring any region of the
State over another.
Ask the Bay Area lawmakers, who have expressed so much concern over
``sparking a water war'' where their water comes from. You will find
that their water comes from my district, my colleagues' districts in
the Valley, as well as the Sierras.
This bill advances planning of five surface water storage projects
that would yield enough water for 9.6 million people, projects that
two-thirds of Californians voted to fund with State money just last
year.
Yet, my disappointment here is that we have so many California
legislators today and in the past that oppose anything we try to do to
enhance the water supply and deliverability in the State of California.
What is more, it isn't human water use that is negatively impacting
listed species. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service and
Delta Stewardship Council, 90 percent of endangered winter-run salmon
are killed and eaten by invasive fish species before they even reach
the delta.
The opposition, despite all data to the contrary, denies that
invasive species are a part of the problem. Years of lawsuits aimed at
reducing water use haven't helped at all endangered salmon, but this
bill takes real steps to aid that population. This bill takes action to
reduce the populations of invasive species.
While opponents may claim this bill impacts commercial salmon
fishing, they won't say that the National Marine Fisheries Service
found that commercial ocean fishing reduces the remaining endangered
winter-run Chinook population by as much as 25 percent.
So there it is right there. 92.5 percent of endangered winter-run
Chinook are killed by invasive species and commercial fishing outside
of whatever happens in the delta, 92.5 percent.
When opponents claim that this bill alters the Endangered Species
Act, ask them to show you the language where it does so. They can't
show you that because it doesn't exist. Believe me, if I could, I would
amend the Endangered Species Act to be more effective, actually, in
helping species as well as human needs.
In fact, this bill enhances implementation of the ESA by requiring
improved population monitoring and invasive species management,
components that should be universally supportable.
Mr. Chairman, let's put a stop to the half-truths and misleading
rhetoric, such as no hearings being held. We had two hearings as well
as hearings in the Valley on this bill and its components.
The opponents don't believe that we should take any action at all,
that nothing is wrong, despite 36 percent mandatory water reductions to
homes--such as in my district, like in Redding--thousands of lost jobs,
and a half million fallowed acres.
These drought deniers claim that 38 million people--soon to be 50
million in California--can prosper with water delivery infrastructure
built for 20 million people years ago, despite irrefutable evidence
that our State's economy has dried up.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to take action and pass H.R. 2898.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification, the opposition
does not oppose addressing invasive species that may have impacts on
our fisheries.
What we do agree with, though, is all of the serious science,
including peer-reviewed science, that finds that water diversions are
the main challenge and the main impact. And we cannot ignore the
elephant in the room when we are talking about recovering our
fisheries.
As for this claim that there was some kind of a hearing in the
Valley, Mr. Chairman, not in this Congress and not a real hearing.
It doesn't count when you have a Republican swing through Fresno with
a fundraiser and a rally and a press event and no Democratic ranking
members in
[[Page H5246]]
attendance. That is not serious deliberation.
We are talking about real hearings where diverse witnesses and water
experts and lots of Democrats get to participate in a serious and
meaningful way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of our Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee of the T&I Committee, a champion on water
issues for many, many years.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do heavily oppose H.R. 2898. It does create no new
wet water.
I am hearing a lot of rhetoric on all these different things that
have happened. I have been on that subcommittee for 17 years, and I
have heard it all.
I have been to the Central Valley. I have been talking to farmers.
But I don't see any of my colleagues on the other side visiting
southern California and checking out how we do things in San Diego and
Los Angeles, to be able to have hearings with the water agencies and
all those that are critically affected by what is affecting southern
California.
Now, this bill has been introduced. There has been no hearing in our
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. There has been no
consultation with Democrats, except one maybe, with no water agency,
with State agencies, with cities, and with tribes.
It does nothing for farmworkers, the ones who are really affected by
the drought and who have no way of being able to have income or other
way of subsidence.
The bill focuses on the Central Valley at the expense of the rest of
both northern California and southern California.
It requires mandatory pumping to agribusiness, which reduces southern
California water deliveries. It creates a complicated and ill-defined
system that is a very poor attempt at protecting State water deliveries
to southern California.
And it is proof, also, that the authors know that the bill will
reduce deliveries to southern California due to water quality and
environmental problems created with increased pumping to the Central
Valley.
This bill affects the entire country, the U.S., by weakening Federal
environmental review laws, by creating unreasonable deadlines for
environmental review when the biggest problem with delayed view is
``inadequate funding.''
California's Natural Resources Secretary, John Laird, states that
this bill would ``reignite water wars, move water policy back into the
courts, and try to pit one part of the State against another.''
California Senator Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator, said the bill
contains provisions ``that would violate environmental law.''
California Senator Barbara Boxer says the bill ``will only reignite
the water wars.''
The White House opposes this legislation and will veto it, saying
that ``it fails to address critical elements of California's complex
water challenges and will, if enacted, impede an effective and timely
response to the continuing drought while providing no additional water
to the hard-hit communities.''
We must work on this water issue in a bipartisan manner to address
California's entire State drought.
I have introduced H.R. 291, the Water in the 21st Century Act, which
would provide actual drought relief to all of California with water
conservation programs, water recycling projects, groundwater
improvement operations, stormwater capture solutions, and
desalinization.
We need to support long-term solutions with shovel-ready projects
that quickly create water.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There is a $300 million backlog on title XVI for
recycled water that would help southern California be able to wean
itself off of the imported water. Key House Democratic proposals have
been excluded from the bill we are marking up today.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2898.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, 18 hearings in 5 years have been held on
this subject. Democrat Members were invited to attend hearings in
California. Only one chose to attend.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Western Water and
American Food Security Act.
The Obama administration has exacerbated drought conditions in the
West by putting the demands of extremist special interest groups ahead
of hard-working American families.
For example, Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits have
allowed for hundreds of billions of gallons of water to be diverted
into the San Francisco Bay in order to protect a 3-inch fish.
This has had a dramatic impact, killing thousands of jobs, harming
our food supply, and leading to unemployement levels as high as 40
percent in some communities.
H.R. 2898 is a balanced approach for combating drought conditions in
the West. The bill protects private water rights and prohibits Federal
takings. This legislation streamlines the Federal permitting process
and will increase water storage capacity.
American families are hurting in the West and need some relief. H.R.
2898 will help ensure a reliable water supply for our citizens and our
Nation's ag producers.
I urge adoption of this commonsense bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, more clarification is needed. We continue
to hear about this legendary 3-inch fish that is apparently taking so
much water from Californians.
Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that, over the last 2
years, that 3-inch fish has taken exactly zero water from those who
depend on water diverted out of the delta system.
As for employment levels, certainly folks are hurting from this
drought throughout California and in other Western States.
But with reference to agricultural employment, thanks to the
incredible productivity of our farmers in California, ag employment was
actually up 2 percent last year, another stubborn fact that needs to be
remembered so that we can get the context of this bill right.
I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), our distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me
the time and for the good work he has done on the water issues in our
committee and for the rational thought he brings to the discussion.
Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act is not causing the
California drought, period. It is wrong to mislead the people living
through the drought by telling them that the answer is to abolish
environmental laws. It isn't.
But here come the House Republicans again with another unfounded
attack on endangered species that will go extinct without ESA
protection.
Here they come again, claiming ``power grab'' and ``overreach'' every
time that they don't get their way.
Here they come again, using a serious water challenge as an excuse to
chip away at a law they don't support, even if it is unrelated to the
problem at hand.
Millions of Californians need Congress to take this drought
seriously. But my friends across the aisle have decided their
opposition to the Endangered Species Act is more important, and the
drought in California is a convenient excuse to dismantle ESA.
We recently finished debating the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill that now includes language that would
jeopardize the survival of the African elephant, greater sage-grouse,
gray wolf, northern long-eared bat, Sonoran desert tortoise, and many
other endangered species.
H.R. 2898 will add the delta smelt and several salmon and steelhead
runs to the list of species that the House Republicans have decided we
can do without.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, the sponsor of this
legislation said last month on live television that he would
``hopefully someday repeal
[[Page H5247]]
the Endangered Species Act.'' That kind of rhetoric is not
constructive, but is a useful glimpse into the real Republican agenda.
{time} 0945
By showing what this bill is actually about, these comments tell us
Republicans know that this is a distraction from the real problem.
California faces a crippling drought and global warming that will
continue to make the State drier and hotter, and the demand for water
far outstrips supply.
Californians will have to make some tough choices in this drought,
but they do not need to choose to exterminate fish and wildlife
resources that belong to the American people. Congress should not
choose to do so either.
People and wildlife can coexist, and the ESA is proving it. Since
1973, 99 percent of protected species have survived, and the U.S.
economy has tripled from just over 5 trillion to more than 16 trillion.
Restoring delta smelt, salmon, and steelheads will have additional
economic benefit for commercial and recreational fishermen.
If that isn't enough, Americans are telling us that we have to
protect species. Recent polling shows 90 percent of voters support ESA.
Sadly, this bill is just another example of House Republicans
ignoring the will of the American people and driving the extinction of
American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2898.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wyoming, who has
been a huge support on this legislation.
I hear on the other side that there are no real solutions in this
bill, real solutions that actually help deliver water; and that
frustrates me to no end because there are a lot of solutions that have
a lot of support.
We also hear that this delta smelt has had no impact on pumping this
water out of the delta, when the Bureau of Reclamation, through their
own estimates, say about a million acre-feet annually is impacted
between the Central Valley project and the State water project. That is
a government agency that is doing the restricting and holding back the
water that is telling us themselves.
Then every year in the news, we hear another three fish were caught
in the pumps. They are looking and counting, and they are already
starting to figure out when they are going to turn the pumps off again
so they can restrict the pumping of those fish.
Then we hear this does not have an impact on farmworkers. Farmworkers
aren't looking for your handouts. They are sick and tired of sitting at
home and taking a check. They want to work. They want to produce.
They want to walk into a grocery store with the money they earned and
purchase the products that they were involved in growing. To them, that
is a sign of the American dream. It is a sign of having the opportunity
to produce and to be a productive member of society and to show their
family and raise their family in an environment that allows them to
grow with a little bit of respect and dignity for what they do.
Now, as far as the solutions in this bill that they claim don't
exist, reservoirs are a big deal. That is what holds water so that we
can use it for later on in periods like now. We actually asked to
streamline the process so we can get those approved quicker.
We have asked to end the studies that have been going on for nearly
15 years. We are 13 years into it, and $150 million of taxpayer money
has been spent studying these things to no end. We want to end that. I
don't think that is unreasonable. The President seems to think it is,
but I don't see how it possibly could be.
We target predator species that are actually having an impact on the
delta smelt. According to studies, you hear about 95 percent of those
delta smelt and salmonoid are being consumed by these predator species.
We offer a solution in order to take care of that problem.
Real science, we asked for a layer of bureaucracy. My opponent or my
friend from the other side seems to think it is a layer of bureaucracy,
but we are asking for real science to be put in place to make sure
that, when we decide to turn off these pumps to hurt the communities in
the Central Valley, to put these people out of work, that real science
is actually used; and we actually try to verify that things are
actually accomplishing something when we turn these pumps off.
As far as hearings, we have had hearings. We wanted those hearings in
the valley. We took the request of our friends on the other side, and
we had the hearing right there in Fresno in the heart of the problem so
they can see for themselves what this is causing, what effect this is
having in our communities.
Like my friend from Wyoming mentioned, we had one person show up; and
I would like to thank that gentleman for coming, Mr. Costa, and
spending some time. It is his hometown, so he understands the issue
well.
This is something that we take very seriously. This bill is a
comprehensive bill that covers a lot of different topics, but it also
helps deliver real water. I don't know what the difference between wet
water and dry water is, but we are looking to deliver real water to the
valley.
If this didn't deliver real water like they claim, what are they
afraid of? What is the fear of this legislation passing if it doesn't
deliver, in their own words?
We are looking to get some water, helping our community and helping
people get back to work and grow delicious, wonderful American food
that we are very proud of.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite testimony from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service before the State water board
just a few months ago, February 18, 2015, in which they testified the
delta smelt biological opinion has not required mandatory restrictions
on water exports since early 2013, over 2 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Costa), my distinguished colleague from Fresno.
I do not agree with him on this particular bill, but I do want to say
that he has been a champion for his district and certainly has great
command of the water issue.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me 2 minutes.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Western Water and
American Food Security Act that we are debating here today.
Yes, we are debating this issue, and this is not new. What you have
exhibited here and seen this morning is where the water fault lines lie
in California, and it also is reflective of many of the Western States.
This 4 years of historic drought has pointed out clearly that we have
a broken water system in California. Here we are on the floor, having
another debate over whether or not we are going to pass a bill to help
people because, at the end of the day, these are people problems,
people problems in every region of California.
Nowhere have those people been more impacted than in the San Joaquin
Valley, which much of us represent. These are families where parents
have lost their jobs, whose children are not able to attend school.
These are farmworkers, these are farm communities that have felt the
most severe impact of this drought and the water constraints that we
now are dealing with.
My colleagues on the Democratic side argue that this is simply a
cause of 4 continuous dry years, and while that is partially true, it
ignores that that talking point doesn't recognize that, in fact, we
have a broken water system designed for 20 million people.
Communities in the San Joaquin Valley have seen their water supply
reduced long term by 40 percent, and agricultural use has declined over
the last 40 years because we are more efficient water users. Some, in
my area, have had a zero water allocation the last 2 years. Zero, that
is no water.
This reduced reliability has impacted every region of the State to be
sure. It has impacted large metropolitan areas like the Silicon Valley,
Los Angeles, San Diego, as well as the small rural and often
disadvantaged communities like those in the valley that I represent.
This measure, H.R. 2898, takes a step toward addressing this
longstanding imbalance by enhancing scientific management of the water
projects in California and then giving it greater
[[Page H5248]]
flexibility. It also provides additional storage.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman. It provides additional
flexibility to increase our water supply. We have to use all the water
tools in the water management toolbox, and that includes increasing
storage capacity, and it is about time that we began doing that.
It also tries to address many of the other factors that are
preventing the recovery of endangered species, like the invasive
species that are the result of a lot of the decline in salmon in
California.
Let me quote Karen Hesse, an author of ``Out of the Dust.'' She said:
``The way I see it, hard times aren't only about money or drought or
dust. Hard times are about losing the spirit and hope and what happens
when dreams dry up.''
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that a lot of the
dreams are drying up in the people that I represent in the San Joaquin
Valley. This drought is crushing their spirit, making them feel as if
their dreams never become a reality and too often feel like they are
the country cousin, literally and figuratively, of the two urban areas
in southern California and northern California.
The solution that California needs is not more talking points, but
legislation working together on a bipartisan basis. This legislation
starts that process. It is a work in progress. Obviously, it will be
amended.
It will be changed as we work with the Senate later this fall.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding; and
I thank my colleague on the other side, Mr. Costa, for his work on this
in the bipartisan bill. I thank Congressman Valadao for bringing it to
the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a place that is called, for a very good
reason, ``America's salad bowl.'' We produce the vegetables; we produce
the fruits, and we produce the nuts that feed the Nation.
The Nation should know what the people in my district know: Food
grows where water flows, and no water equals higher food costs.
That is what the signs read across the district if you drive down the
highways, but you can see trouble in more than just the signs you read.
You see it in the parched farmlands, in the reservoirs that are all but
empty, and in the faces of those whose jobs have dried up with the
water.
Now, I am talking about this as a Californian, a native from
Bakersfield, but this isn't a local problem. Half of the produce we eat
in America is grown in California, and California is the eighth largest
economy in the world. When California hurts, the entire Nation hurts as
well.
This is even bigger than just California. Almost 40 percent of the
West is facing a severe drought, and it is undeniably clear that the
status quo is unsustainable.
If we do nothing, people will lose their livelihoods; water prices
also continue to go up, and America will have to rely more and more on
foreign food, perhaps from countries that don't have the same labor or
environmental laws that we do.
Now, we can't make it rain, but we can't give up either. Some people
want to do just that, Mr. Chairman; some believe that our way of life
has to change, that it is time to focus on conservation above all and
manage our decline. I reject that.
If California is in decline, then the American West is in decline,
and the hope of so many generations is in decline. We will lose that
pioneering spirit that will lead us through the 21st century.
Now, we have a bill before us today that rejects the idea that we
have reached the heights of the shining city on a hill and that it is
time to come back down to a world of limits and of uncertainty. We have
never accepted failure; nothing, not even a historic drought, will make
us start now.
Here in the House, we have tried time and again to address this
problem. This Congress, the last two Congresses, have addressed it
before we hit a historic drought. Let's not forget, just 5 years ago,
we had 172 percent of snowpack.
We talk a lot about desalinization, and I support it. What does
desalinization do? It takes saltwater and makes it freshwater. Why in
California do we allow our freshwater to become saltwater? Shouldn't we
protect that first?
This bill takes ideas from both sides, as we just heard from
Congressman Costa and from this side. We designed the bill to move as
much water down south to our farms and to our cities as possible
without making any fundamental changes to the environmental law.
In reality, this bill is very simple. It does four things in
California. We allow water to flow through the delta. We create a
process to build more storage that has been promised so many years
before but has been held in bureaucratic red tape. We will increase the
reservoirs, and we will protect the senior water rights and the
California State water project.
This drought also extends beyond California. That is why this bill
includes so many provisions to help our friends in the Western States
through their tough times as well.
You see, Mr. Chairman, we have a challenge before us. It is a
challenge of nature, yes; but it is also a change of policy, foresight,
and plain common sense. For decades, our State and country have faced
droughts. For years, Californians have endured this drought.
Now, we are here today to move forward toward a solution. It is a
solution built upon ideas from, yes, Democrats and Republicans. It is a
solution that rejects the idea of decline and failure and says with a
clear voice: We will not let the drought defeat us.
California is better than that; the West is better than that, and,
Mr. Chairman, America is better than that. We will not lose hope. We
will solve the problem with or without you.
{time} 1000
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the balance of my
time?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 15\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the majority leader's
statements about when freshwater becomes saltwater.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), who represents the part of California that understands the
incredible ecological and economic value of that mixing zone where
freshwater becomes saltwater, and represents communities that are on
that thin blue line depending on that point at which freshwater becomes
saltwater. And if it were compromised, and if that saltwater were
allowed to intrude by virtue of some of the provisions in this bill, he
represents the front line of communities that would be very adversely
impacted.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely correct. In my district, if that
freshwater doesn't run through and run out to the ocean, the saltwater
runs back in. I have two major cities in my district that rely on that
for a source of water. If this bill were to pass, their water supply is
in jeopardy. You can't drink saltwater; it just doesn't work.
California is in the middle of a very extreme drought. It is not due
to a lack of pumping; it is not because of our State's water
regulations, and it is not because we are putting fish ahead of farms
and people. It is because there is no rain and there is no snow. No
bill can make it rain, but this bill makes a bad situation even worse.
It is wrong for California. It won't stop the drought; it won't make it
rain; but it will kill jobs, and it will ruin drinking water for
millions of Californians.
The State of California won't support this bill because it ignores 20
years of established science and undermines our extensive efforts to
implement equal measures to address longstanding water shortages.
We have been down this road before in California. We ignored science
and we diverted water out of the Klamath River, and nearly 80,000
spawning salmon died. Communities were devastated and livelihoods were
lost.
[[Page H5249]]
This bill also sets a dangerous precedent for every other State in
our country. California has longstanding water management rules. This
bill overrides the very system of water regulations that Californians
themselves devised to govern our State's water supply. It tells local
resource managers and water districts how to administer their water
supply.
If we pass this bill, we are telling every State in America that we
are okay with the Federal Government undermining local experts and
State laws from coast to coast. If that weren't enough, this bill also
undercuts longstanding environmental laws.
The legislation we are debating today redefines the standard by which
the Endangered Species Act is applied. This will weaken the law,
increase the risk of species extinction, and lead to countless lawsuits
and costly litigation. It is as if the majority is holding wildlife
responsible for our lack of rain.
You will hear the other side talk about a little fish, the delta
smelt, and how we are protecting fish at the expense of people. The
truth is, as the gentleman from California mentioned, that protection
of the smelt hasn't prevented one drop of water from being pumped south
since 2013. We haven't pumped more water south because there simply
isn't enough water. We are in a drought.
I am not insensitive to the supply and demand reality of California's
water. I understand the concerns of the Central Valley farmers. I am a
farmer myself. But if my well runs dry, the solution isn't to steal the
water from my neighbors. We need real solutions that are based on
science and that work for everyone. This bill is not that solution. It
is bad for California; it is bad for other States; it is bad for our
environment.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, facts are stubborn things. According to
the Bureau of Reclamation, biological opinions involving species did
reduce Central Valley's exports by 62,200 acre-feet in 2014. Already
this year, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, species have reduced
Central Valley project waters to farmers by 280,000 acre-feet. Again,
my source is the Bureau of Reclamation.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the other day, Topper Shutt in his
broadcast, said, ``Today is going to be a glorious day.'' He obviously
was talking about the sunshine outside, which means we should have done
this bill yesterday so I could be on my deck right now, but that is
beside the point.
This is, though, a glorious day because we are finally doing a
solution that helps people. Instead of just kicking the can down the
road again for another year, we are going to find a solution to this
problem, this problem of a drought that is affecting the entire West to
such a degree that one would think that Nostradamus' quatrains have
come true. But what we are doing here is finding a solution.
Many of the opponents of this bill would simply say let's pass more
rain dances and hope something happens. What we are doing here is
taking the advice of our pioneer forefathers and saying what we have,
save. Do it as storage. And not just for California, but for the entire
West. That is the purpose behind this particular bill.
There are some concerns about environmental issues that may or may
not have been wise to do in the past. That is not the concern of this
bill. We are not stopping any of that. What we are doing is finding a
creative way to provide for that, but also provide a way of getting
water to people where they need it.
In the middle of the last century, we did water projects and
hydropower projects that helped us win the war. Now is the time to do
water projects and hydropower projects to help us feed people in this
Nation and in the entire world and to help out areas that have up to 50
percent unemployment. I have been down there and I have seen those
particular communities, many of them first- and second-generation
Americans, minorities who only want to provide a decent living for
themselves and for their families and to work.
What we need to do is actually solve this problem so we can put
people to work to provide food for this country and to provide jobs for
people and to help people. That is what this bill is about: finally
helping people with creative solutions. If the Romans could build an
aqueduct system to move water, we can build a system to move water that
actually helps people. This is about people.
Pass this bill. Let's move it on. Let's solve the problem.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), my colleague from Los
Angeles, a city that, frankly, is pioneering some of the most promising
water management strategies we have in California, strategies that are
reflected in our alternative bill, for which I am grateful Mr. Cardenas
is a cosponsor. They are stretching water supplies not just using
imported water wisely, but managing recycled water, groundwater,
treating storm water, working on the cutting edge. They deserve Federal
support for those proven strategies, support that our colleagues across
the aisle have withheld for too many years.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me
time. Thank you for your wonderful work always on these issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate,
a failure to communicate our priorities, but, more importantly, as
legislators, a failure to work on compromise.
California is currently facing a historic drought. We can no longer
take water for granted. Every single Californian has been forced to
examine how much we truly depend on clean, reliable water in our
everyday lives. Cities, residents, and businesses around the State are
cutting back, but it is not enough. Unless the Western United States
experiences significant rainfall in the near future, we will see ghost
towns in extreme hardship for the most at-risk populations of our
State.
While much of the coverage in the media has been on brown lawns
across the State and the rationing that is going on, the real impacts
threaten the lives of hard-working families throughout our State.
Take a trip through California's Central Valley. There you will see
the gravity of the situation. You will see unemployment rates double or
triple the national average, forcing families into makeshift dwellings
that remind us of the Hoovervilles during the Dust Bowl. These families
aren't thinking of their brown lawns. They are thinking of the fact
that they have lost their home. These families want their jobs back.
They want to go to work so that they can feed their children.
This bill and the various Democratic alternatives are works in
progress. We have to find a solution, but this bill is not it.
If we are serious about facing the challenges our constituents sent
us here to solve, I am ready and willing to work with you, and with
you, to make the necessary, tough decisions and compromises.
I look forward to working with Mr. Costa, whose district is facing
the most significant impacts, and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara
Boxer to craft a stronger bipartisan and bicameral solution.
We have no choice but to find better ways to capture and transport
water in all parts of the State to meet the needs of the people and our
economy while protecting the environment and delicate species. We must
not use this time of need as a way to pick partisan fights. We have to
find legislation that protects our environment while we also protect
California families.
Lives are at stake. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to come together
and work together.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and
Environment of the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again, debating solutions to California's
water woes, with each side making similar arguments we have heard for
years.
In fact, more than a decade ago, I was standing in this very spot, in
the middle of the debate of the last significant Western water law that
Congress has passed. We passed the CALFED law
[[Page H5250]]
in 2004 and hoped that it would help California establish reliable and
affordable water supplies that would help us get through dry spells
like we are currently experiencing.
So why are we back here again debating many of the same issues? The
simplest answer to that question is we allowed the ``don't build
anything'' faction in California to block the critical investments we
need to make in our State's water infrastructure.
The CALFED law authorized feasibility studies for large water storage
projects like Temperance Flat, Sites Reservoir, Upper San Joaquin,
expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and raising Shasta Dam. A decade
later, our State's population has grown by 3 million new residents, and
those projects are still being studied. Think about that for a second.
California's population has grown the same amount as the population of
the entire State of Iowa, and we haven't made a significant investment
in our water infrastructure to accommodate those residents.
It is well past time to stop talking about these projects and start
building them. Thankfully, the bill before us will move us in that
direction by requiring our resource agencies to finally complete those
decade-long feasibility studies.
Of course, building water storage doesn't help us in the short term,
and it also requires excess water that can be diverted. That is why the
Western Water and American Food Security Act injects commonsense and
science in the operation of our water infrastructure.
When it does rain again, we simply can't afford to make the same
mistakes we have made in the past and allow millions of gallons to flow
out to the Pacific Ocean. Those wasted flows don't benefit the
environment, farmers, or California residents, and they must be
directed to a higher, better use.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a clear choice before us today. We
can continue to listen to those who oppose investing in California's
water infrastructure and we can believe we can restrict our way out of
this problem, or we can recognize that California's situation today is
far worse than it should be precisely because of our failure to build
adequate water storage and restore more science and commonsense into
our water policies that are operating today.
I encourage all my colleagues to support the Western Water and
American Food Security Act so that we can avoid being back here on the
House floor during California's next drought having these very same
arguments.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi), from the Sacramento Valley.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues.
We have been here before. I have listened to my colleagues who are
the proponents of this bill over the last 5 years. As the previous
speaker said, we have gone down this path before.
There really is a solution. Unfortunately, I guess all of us, in one
way or another, hang on to our past rhetoric and ignore the opportunity
that really demands our attention now to develop a comprehensive, good
policy for California.
{time} 1015
There is a lot in this bill that goes in the proper direction, and it
is an improvement over the past bills. There is no doubt about it.
The issue of moving forward with the projects that are necessary,
that is all good, dams and other kinds of programs and the aquifer
restoration. It is a good deal. However, in this bill, there are things
that are very, very troublesome.
You cannot mandate by law the operations of the water systems in
California or anywhere else. You cannot specify how they will be
operating because you do not know on a day-to-day or a year-to-year or
a month-to-month basis what is actually going to be on the ground.
So that portion of the bill that sets out those operating procedures
should be removed. Goals, yes. Operating procedures, no. It just won't
work.
As said by both the Federal and State governments, if you were to
move this bill forward into law, you would create chaos in California.
Every paragraph, every comma, every word, in California water law--both
in law and in court decisions--sets the precedent, but, unfortunately,
this bill overrides that.
We are very close to it. We can put this together. My colleague, Mr.
Huffman, has a proposal that is comprehensive, and it ought to be
integrated into our programs and it ought to be integrated into this
bill. But the kind of compromise and discussion that is necessary to
develop a law that actually works has not been undertaken.
I would urge my colleagues, the proponents of this bill, to slow it
down, to let the State and Federal Governments continue to do what they
are doing, and that is to operate this system to the maximum potential
despite the fact that there is very, very little water.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. GARAMENDI. We can do this, but we have to work together.
Unfortunately, that has not occurred; so I urge my colleagues, the
proponents of this bill, to take the time to meet with those of us who
will be the losers if this bill moves forward. We can all be winners.
I draw your attention to Mr. Huffman's legislation, which is
comprehensive, which will work, and which could be integrated into this
legislation.
In the meantime, I continue to oppose it.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, when I was in the Central
Valley in California, I saw chaos. It is already happening, and the
people are desperate for a solution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, for 7 or 8 years, continually, the
Republicans have offered solutions and, continually, nearly all of the
Democrats have voted ``no.''
This isn't about solutions, because the real solution the left wants
is to idle over a million acres of farm ground in the San Joaquin
Valley. This is why the forefathers of our State built a system that
would withstand a drought of 5 years.
Look, we need additional storage, but everyone in this body--anyone
who knows anything about water--knows that, if you don't fix the
plumbing in the delta, if you don't deal with the San Joaquin River
settlement and if you don't build a few new storage projects, over a
million acres of farm ground are going to go idle.
Those are the facts. Conveniently, most of my friends who are up here
speaking on the left live in the coastal areas and get their water--
they steal their water--from our area to give themselves pristine
drinking water. That is what they do.
Now we are going to be left with the chaos that has developed from
over a million acres of farm ground coming out of production unless the
Senate can take and act on this legislation quickly.
Mr. Chair, in the summer of 2002, shortly before I was elected to
Congress, I sat through an eye-opening meeting with representatives
from the Natural Resources Defense Council and several local
environmental activist groups. Hoping to convince me to support various
water restrictions, they argued that San Joaquin Valley farmers should
stop growing alfalfa and cotton in order to save water--though they
allowed that the planting of high-value crops such as almonds could
continue.
Then, as our discussion turned to the groups' overall vision for the
San Joaquin Valley, they told me something astonishing:
Their goal was to remove 1.3 million acres of farmland from
production. They showed me maps that laid out their whole plan: From
Merced all the way down to Bakersfield, and on the entire west side of
the Valley as well as part of the east side, productive agriculture
would end and the land would return to some ideal state of nature. I
was stunned by the vicious audacity of their goal--and I quickly
learned how dedicated they were to realizing it.
[[Page H5251]]
How to Steal Water and get away with it
For decades, extreme environmentalists have pursued this goal in
California with relentless determination. The method they have used to
depopulate the targeted land--water deprivation--has been ruthless and
effective.
Much of the media and many politicians blame the San Joaquin Valley's
water shortage on drought, but that is merely an aggravating factor.
From my experience representing California's agricultural heartland, I
know that our water crisis is not an unfortunate natural occurrence; it
is the intended result of a long-term campaign waged by radical
environmentalists who resorted to political pressure as well as profuse
lawsuits.
Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal
and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths
to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S.
agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following
actions they took:
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC,
Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic
majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a
must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet
of water--or 260 billion gallons--on the Valley's west side had to be
diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000
acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.
Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and
similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological
opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions
virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants--the
two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water--and
resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.
The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of
litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources
Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San
Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in
2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by
President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River
Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs
along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from
Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California
Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based
on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water
supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.
Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry
Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans
to achieve ``groundwater sustainability''--essentially limiting how
much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these
pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will
reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley
communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as
their surface water supplies were drastically cut.
A Litany Of Hypocrisy
As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San
Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning
contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:
``There's not enough water in California'': Environmentalists often
claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having
enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially
during a drought.
However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta,
which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that
originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into
the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the
water throughout the state.
But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of
water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist
groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that
enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water
infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the
current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a
crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more
than 2 million acre-feet of water--or 652 billion gallons--into the
ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have
prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full
capacity.
``Farmers use 80% of California's water'': Having deliberately
reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the
radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame
farmers (``big agriculture,'' as they call them) for using 80% of the
state's water.
This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is
a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get
40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes--that
is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge
environmental water diversion from their calculations--as if it is
somehow irrelevant to the water crisis--environmentalists deceptively
double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%.
If at first you don't succeed, do the exact same thing: Many of the
Delta water cuts stem from the radicals' litigation meant to protect
salmon and smelt. Yet after decades of water reductions, the salmon
population fluctuates wildly, while the smelt population has fallen to
historic lows. The radicals' solution, however, is always to dump even
more water from the Delta into the ocean, even though this approach has
failed time and again.
The striped bass absurdity: If the radicals really want to protect
salmon and the Delta smelt, its a bit of a mystery why they also
champion protections for the striped bass, a non-native species that
eats both salmon and smelt.
Hetch Hetchy hypocrites: The San Francisco Bay Area provides a
primary support base for many environmental groups. Lucky for them,
their supporters don't have to endure the kinds of hardships these
organizations have foisted on San Joaquin Valley communities.
While the radicals push for ever-harsher water restrictions in the
Valley, their Bay Area supporters enjoy an unimpeded water supply piped
in across the state from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite
National Park. This water is diverted around the Delta, meaning it does
not contribute to the Delta's water quality standards. Environmental
groups have conveniently decided not to subject Hetch Hetchy water to
any sort of litigation that would cut the supply to the Bay Area.
We're from the government, and we're here to help: Government
agencies that catch smelt as part of scientific population measurements
actually kill more of the fish than are destroyed in the supposedly
killer water pumps.
Hitchhiking salmon: The San Joaquin River Settlement is estimated
already to have cost taxpayers $1.2 billion--and it's clear to me that
the total price tag will likely exceed $2 billion--in a disastrous
effort to restore salmon runs to the San Joaquin River.
Moreover, the settlement legislation defines success as reintroducing
500 salmon to the river, which means spending $4 million per fish. The
salmon, which have not been in the river for more than half a century,
have proved so incapable of sustaining themselves that agents have
resorted to plucking them out of the water and trucking them wherever
they are supposed to go. It is a badly kept secret among both
environmentalists and federal officials that this project has already
failed.
A man-made state of nature: The radicals claim they want to reverse
human depredations in the Delta and restore fish to their natural
habitat. Yet the entire Delta system is not natural at all. It's a man-
made network of islands that functions only thanks to upstream water
storage projects. In fact, without man-made storage projects, canals
and dams, in dry years such as this the rivers would quickly run dry,
meaning there would be no water and no fish.
A Three-Step Solution
The radicals have pursued their plan methodically and successfully;
between the CVPIA, the biological opinions, and the San Joaquin River
Settlement, around a million acres of farmland have been idled. What's
left of the water supply is inadequate for sustaining Valley farming
communities: South of the Delta, we now face an annual water supply
deficit of approximately 2.5 million acre-feet, or 815 billion gallons.
In fact, with the state groundwater regulations announced last year,
the radicals are poised to achieve their goal. The depletion of
groundwater is a direct effect--and indeed, was an intended result--of
the radicals' assault on our surface water.
(After all, if farmers, churches, schools and communities can't get
surface water, they'll predictably resort to ground water.)
But the radicals have perversely cited the groundwater depletion they
themselves engineered to justify regulating the groundwater supply.
This is the final step in their program, since many farmers will not be
able to keep growing food if they continue to receive zero water
allocations and are restricted from tapping enough ground water.
The Valley cannot endure this situation much longer, but the good
news is that it's not too late to save our communities. Led by the
Valley's Republican delegation, the U.S. House has passed legislation
twice that would bring a long-term end to the water crisis. The
solution comprises these three simple measures:
Return Delta pumping to normal operations at federal and state pumps.
Because normal
[[Page H5252]]
pumping levels are already paid for, this measure would cost taxpayers
zero dollars.
Fix the San Joaquin River Settlement. Instead of continuing to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on an unworkable scheme to recreate
salmon runs, we should turn the San Joaquin River into a year-round
flowing river with recirculated water This approach would be good for
the warm-water fish habitat and for recreation, and it would save
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars that will otherwise go down
the salmon-run rat hole.
Expedite and approve construction of major new water projects. This
should include building the Temperance Flat dam along the San Joaquin
River, raising Shasta dam to increase its reservoir capacity, expanding
the San Luis Reservoir and approving construction of the Sites
Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley. Because water users themselves
should rightfully pay for these projects, they would cost federal
taxpayers zero dollars.
These measures would not only end the water crisis, they would
improve the environment for fish and wildlife--all while saving
taxpayer dollars.
The Price Of Inaction
I warned of the likely outcome of the radicals' campaign in my
testimony to a House committee back in 2009:
``Failure to act, and it's over. You will witness the collapse of
modern civilization in the San Joaquin Valley.''
That is indeed the grim future facing the Valley if we don't change
our present trajectory. The solution passed twice by the U.S. House,
however, was blocked by Senate Democrats, who were supported by the
administration of Gov. Brown as well as the Obama administration. These
Democrats need to begin speaking frankly and honestly with San Joaquin
Valley communities, and with Californians more broadly, about the
effects of idling 1.3 million acres of farmland. This will ruin not
only Valley farming operations, but will wipe out entire swathes of
associated local businesses and industries.
The damage is not limited to the Valley. Although residents of
coastal areas such as Los Angeles, the Bay Area and San Diego have been
led to believe they are being subject to water restrictions due to the
drought, that's not actually true. As in the Valley, these areas and
many others ultimately depend on the Delta pumps for their water
supply. If the pumps had been functioning normally for the past decade,
none of these cities would be undergoing a water crisis today.
And it's a safe bet that Brown's mandatory water reductions will not
alleviate the crisis, leading to a drastic increase in restrictions in
the not-too-distant future. Watering your lawn, washing your car and
countless other everyday activities will be banned up and down
California. In their mania to attack Central Valley farming, the
radicals are inadvertently running the entire state out of water.
Endgame
Many organizations representing California agriculture, including
water districts and--shockingly--even some San Joaquin Valley cities
and counties, became part of the problem instead of the solution,
having lent no support to the House-passed water bills. Suffering from
a strange kind of Stockholm Syndrome, many of these groups and agencies
hope that if they meekly accept their fate, their overlords will
magnanimously bestow a few drops of water on them.
This mousy strategy, which willfully ignores what the radicals are
really trying to achieve, hasn't worked out well for growers of almonds
and other high-value crops. Although the radicals had been promising
them a free pass back when the groups met with me in 2002, these
growers have CS now become the radicals' primary scapegoat for the
water crisis. This condemnation is reflected in articles such as The
Atlantic's ``The Dark Side of Almond Use,'' The Guardian's ``Alarm as
Almond Farms Consume California's Water,'' and Bloomberg View's ``Amid
a Drought, Cue the Almond Shaming.''
Sadly, the end is near for communities whose land will be forced out
of production. One hopes the affected families will eventually find a
more welcome home in some other state where those who wield power
appreciate folks who grow our food instead of demonize them.
But for now, the pitiless, decades-long assault to deprive them of
their livelihoods is hurtling toward its apex. Meanwhile, many of those
capable of advancing a solution are content to wring their hands, blame
global warming and continue whistling past the graveyard.
Agriculture groups, water districts and municipalities that refuse to
support the two House-passed bills owe their constituents an
alternative solution that will resolve our water shortfall. Water
bureaucrats who ignore or oppose the most prominent, viable solutions
while offering no alternative are, in effect, complicit in the
radicals' long struggle. They should publicly declare which land ought
to come out of production and which Valley industries should be
eliminated since they have no proposals to steer us away from that
outcome.
The Valley's critical situation today demands unity around
constructive solutions. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must all
hang together, or we will surely all hang separately.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Denham).
Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, some will say they are not voting for this bill because
of the challenges they perceive are in it. The biggest problem with
this bill is that it doesn't do enough.
We need millions of new acre-feet of water. We should be looking at
the next generation. I want my kids to farm, but without new water
supplies, we continue to see farmers go out of business.
That speaks to the security of our food supply as a country. You
can't farm with a zero allocation of water, which is why you see the
high unemployment, which is why you see farmworkers who are going to be
homeless and without jobs this year, which is why you will see more
farms go out of business.
This is a battle that has gone on for quite some time, but this bill
deals with some very small issues that will be very significant this
year.
We need to have the full debate about what our country is going to do
with its water supplies and the greater storage that we are going to
need in the future.
Yet, we are dealing with some commonsense issues like predator fish?
Why would we try to save fish only to allow them to be eaten by a
nonnative fish that eats 98 percent of the fish that we are spending
millions of dollars to preserve?
That is not an environmental solution any more than trucking fish
around a river because the river can't handle the fish.
If you want to be an extremist, be an extremist and deal with the
commonsense solution here. This bill moves us in the right direction.
This will help farms stay in business, and this will allow us to
continue to have jobs in the Central Valley and a vibrant food supply
for the rest of the country.
This bill is ripe for passing this morning, and we would ask for a
bipartisan vote.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Western Water and American
Food Security Act of 2015.
My Water Rights Protection Act, incorporated as part of H.R. 2898,
would uphold State water law and priority-based systems and provide
water users with a line of defense from increasingly brazen Federal
attempts to take private water rights without compensation.
These Federal water grabs undermine long-held State water law,
priority-based systems, and our private priority rights. By extorting
water rights from those who hold water rights under State law, the
Federal Government is overreaching, violating private property rights
and the U.S. Constitution.
Federal land management agency attempts to take or to control private
water rights and circumvent State law have put the ski community,
grazers, municipalities, and local businesses at risk.
These private property rights are vital to Colorado and to the
Western U.S. when it pertains to water. Many businesses depend on them
as collateral to be able to get loans, expand, and create jobs.
Water is our lifeblood. Water users need certainty that the Federal
land management agencies are prohibited from future attempts to take
privately held water rights.
This legislation offers a sensible approach to preserve those rights.
I urge its passage.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I was going to put this
up,
[[Page H5253]]
but I don't know how to work the tripod very well. But it is a very
important issue, and this is a very important chart because many have
asked: Why would somebody from Illinois come talk about a bill that has
to do with water in California?
Look at this chart. 99 percent of the almonds, 99 percent of the
dates, and 99 percent of the kiwis that we eat in central Illinois, in
my district, come from the Central Valley of California. All of those
crops need water to grow.
Now, I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Valadao) for
introducing this bill. This is important to me because I have seen the
Central Valley of California. I understand the importance of this
industry to my consumers and as the subcommittee chairman on the House
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture,
and Research.
The issues we face here--changing policies in Washington, D.C.--
affect the price of food that my consumers pay back in Illinois and
affect the many Californians living in the Central Valley who are
dealing with this tremendous issue.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. I want to thank all of my
colleagues who are here today and encourage them once more.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this year marks
California's fourth consecutive year of the drought. In California
alone, over 37 million people are impacted by the drought.
The economic cost of the drought is expected to be nearly $3 billion,
and almost 19,000 agriculture-related jobs will be lost as a result.
Our current drought is not the result of a lack of rain. It is the
result of failed policies that have mismanaged critical water resources
throughout the West.
My colleagues and I in the House come before you today with a
solution: the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015.
This vital bill will modernize our water infrastructure into the 21st
century and will ensure that California is well equipped to handle
future drought crises.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to stand with me as we
work to provide Californians with the water resources they need.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Knight).
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2898, the Western
Water and American Food Security Act. And I will give just a couple of
examples.
I live in the desert of southern California. I am not a northern
California person, and I am not a Central Valley person, but I am a
desert rat in California who understands water is imperative to all of
our needs.
What is happening in my district right now is a 35 percent reduction
in water. That is what they are requesting. All of our water companies
have come forward and have said that they are raising the rates between
30 and 40 percent.
Now, let me tell you that you cannot reduce your water by 35 percent.
You just cannot do it in a single family house. You can reduce. You can
get down to about 10 or 15 percent. But when you are talking 35
percent, it just doesn't happen. That is the life we are living in
today.
I have been sitting here for about an hour, and I have taken a few
notes about what might happen if we pass this.
One of the things that hit me was reignite the environmental wars,
reignite the problems that we are having with water in California.
Let me tell you that I don't believe there is a State in the Union
that is going through as many adjudications of water than is happening
in California right now.
If we are talking about reigniting the water wars or about reigniting
the environmental wars, they are happening today, right now.
In my district alone, we have water adjudication that has been going
on for 17 years. If we are talking about reigniting the environmental
wars, it is happening right now, today. It is not just the delta smelt.
It is the environmental impacts that we are putting on fish above
people.
In my district, again, we have an issue where the Department of Water
and Power from L.A. cannot release water down a canyon to help the
people in the canyon because we have the stickleback fish in there.
They are afraid that it is going to harm that fish; so they have
reduced the water from 1,200 acre-feet a year to 300 acre-feet. The
environmental wars are happening in California today.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. KNIGHT. If we do not do something today, then when? When do we do
something? When do we go back to our constituents and say that we are
actually working on the number one priority in California? A State
without water is dead.
I did a tele-town hall 2 weeks ago. I took 18 phone calls in 1 hour.
There were 17 phone calls that were on water, and on one phone call, he
had no idea what he was talking about. But 17 phone calls out of 18
were on water. This is the number one priority.
If not today, when?
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers, and we are
prepared to close.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have a bill, unfortunately, that would run roughshod over
California State law with respect to water, with respect to the
management of wildlife.
It is a bill that would do harm to the Endangered Species Act and
other environmental Federal laws. It is a bill that would, indeed,
ignite a water war rather than seriously solve problems on this
important issue.
Don't take it from me. Take it from other serious voices that have
examined this bill and the Democratic alternative. Take it from the Los
Angeles Times. Take it from the San Francisco Chronicle. Take it from
the Department of the Interior and from the Obama administration, which
has issued a veto threat.
{time} 1030
This is the same bill that has passed on party lines each of the last
few years, only to be parked in the Senate and go nowhere. It is high
time that we start talking to each other and working with each other on
serious, bipartisan solutions for our water challenges instead of
playing party politics. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to take it from the farmers
who are desperate for water. These are people who have instituted
conservation measures that cost them millions of dollars, changing
their crops from things like lettuce and tomatoes to almond and
pistachio trees with drip irrigation systems that conserve tremendous
amounts of water. Still, those trees were allowed to dry up and die.
Mr. Chairman, to close, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking so many
on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard on this legislation. We
spent months working on this. We have crafted it throughout the
beginning of this Congress, and it has been an important bill. It is
going to continue to be an important bill. We look forward to seeing
who has the courage to stand up and actually vote to help the folks of
California.
When we see the situation that is going on out there in the valley
and we see the faces of these people standing in the food lines, the
people who have worked so hard for so many years to help build farms,
to help build businesses for their families and we see those
farmworkers who have come and had the opportunity to put their kids
through school. Many of them end up in really great places, some of
them even in Congress, like myself. You see so many different
opportunities that come from the valley.
When we have a situation like we have today, where we have literally
been cut off from water, we have had years in the past decade where we
have
[[Page H5254]]
had abundance of water and abundance of snowpack, and we still get a
small fraction of the contracted amounts. Now, today, we are down to
zero.
When people speak of conservation, we have got to find a way to
conserve water, we have got to find a way to save water, absolutely. We
have done those things. We have implemented a lot of different
programs, from drip irrigation, to change of crops, to even trying to
breed better, more drought-tolerant crops.
We have done what we can. We do it in our homes; we have done it in
the way we live our lives, but at the end of the day, you can't
conserve anything from zero because zero is nothing. There is nothing
left. What it has done to our economy, what it has done to the people
in the valley, what it has done to the Nation, what it has done to food
costs across the Nation, when we look at all the different programs,
when we are looking for a place to save money, food cost is having a
huge impact on us all throughout the country.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2898
because it upends decades of state and federal water law and needlessly
pits water users against one another. In the midst of California's
worst drought in its history, this bill mandates that certain interests
come out ahead of others.
California is currently in the fourth year of a punishing drought
that has forced every resident to conserve water, has caused millions
of acres of agricultural land to be fallowed, and places us at risk of
major wildfires. But, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to
permanently upend a century of water law and countless protections for
threatened and endangered wildlife.
H.R. 2898 will weaken or override decades of state and federal law,
including California state water law and the California Constitution;
the state and federal Endangered Species Acts; the National
Environmental Policy Act; and the San Joaquin River Settlement Act.
This list should set off alarm bells for any proponent of states'
rights or cooperative federalism. For over a century, the federal
government has deferred to state water law whenever possible, but this
bill unwinds that history entirely.
And what do we gain by discarding a century of water law and species
protections? According to the Department of Interior which manages the
Delta collaboratively with the state, this bill ``will not provide
additional meaningful relief to those most affected by the drought.''
Local conservationists predict that this bill would cause a complete
extinction of the Delta smelt and would accelerate the decline of the
wild salmon and steelhead runs in California which have been an
important part of the Northern California economy since the mid-19th
century.
Instead of taking up partisan legislation that will start a new water
war in California, Congress should be providing immediate relief to
drought-impacted communities and should invest in long-term drought
resilience measures such as conservation, recycling, and desalination,
which would drastically increase the amount of water available to
farmers in the Central Valley.
This irresponsible bill would override science-based management of
the delicate Delta infrastructure and would gut several of our most
bedrock environmental laws. For these reasons I strongly oppose this
legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong opposition to
H.R. 2898, the so-called ``Western Water and American Food Security Act
of 2015''.
I represent a portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the
largest estuary west of the Mississippi and the source of roughly half
of California's fresh water. Nearly 25 million Californians rely upon
the Delta in one form or another for their drinking water supply.
Additionally, many species depend on the habitats in and around the
700,000-acre estuary for survival. Species in the Delta include birds
and waterfowl like sand hill cranes, and fish like Chinook salmon,
Central Valley steelhead and green sturgeon. Many of these species are
unique to the Delta and found nowhere else on earth. H.R. 2898 would
dramatically weaken protections for these ecosystems and for salmon,
migratory birds, and other fish and wildlife in California's Bay-Delta
estuary, as well as the thousands of fishing jobs in California and
Oregon that depend on the health of these species.
California's ongoing drought--not federal environmental laws--is the
primary reason for low water supplies across the state. California's
drought is real, and we need real solutions. However, H.R. 2898 does
nothing to solve California's severe water shortage or address drought
across the West. Instead, this bill preempts state laws, reduces
management flexibility, eliminates protections for salmon and other
endangered species, and rolls back our nation's fundamental
environmental laws.
H.R. 2898 is not a temporary response to drought. It permanently
amends and overrides the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and
other federal laws. The bill would also limit National Environmental
Policy Act review for water projects, reducing transparency and
eliminating the opportunity for local communities to provide input in
the planning process. Moreover, several provisions of the bill would
preempt state law, including section 313, which would override state
laws, federal laws, a court order, and a binding settlement agreement
to restore the San Joaquin River.
This measure would undermine the State of California's groundbreaking
work to address the drought through the equitable implementation of
water conservation programs, infrastructure improvements, and
innovative water recycling initiatives. Water shortages are a result of
four dry years, not the landmark environmental protections that this
bill seeks to undermine. This bill will not make it rain. Permanently
repealing proper environmental review will not solve the drought.
Ultimately, this bill would not fix our biggest problem--the lack of
water--and would instead set a dangerous precedent of federal overreach
for our state, and a repeal of America's longstanding and effective
environmental protections. As a Californian and a Delta member, I
strongly oppose H.R. 2898, due to the negative impact that this bill
would have on my constituents and the environment.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-23. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2898
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Western
Water and American Food Security Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--ADJUSTING DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT BASED ON INCREASED REAL-TIME
MONITORING AND UPDATED SCIENCE
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Revise incidental take level calculation for delta smelt to
reflect new science.
Sec. 103. Factoring increased real-time monitoring and updated science
into Delta smelt management.
TITLE II--ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Process for ensuring salmonid management is responsive to new
science.
Sec. 203. Non-Federal program to protect native anadromous fish in the
Stanislaus River.
Sec. 204. Pilot projects to implement calfed invasive species program.
TITLE III--OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND DROUGHT RELIEF
Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Operational flexibility in times of drought.
Sec. 303. Operation of cross-channel gates.
Sec. 304. Flexibility for export/inflow ratio.
Sec. 305. Emergency environmental reviews.
Sec. 306. Increased flexibility for regular project operations.
Sec. 307. Temporary operational flexibility for first few storms of the
water year.
Sec. 308. Expediting water transfers.
Sec. 309. Additional emergency consultation.
Sec. 310. Additional storage at New Melones.
Sec. 311. Regarding the operation of Folsom Reservoir.
Sec. 312. Applicants.
Sec. 313. San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 314. Program for water rescheduling.
TITLE IV--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Sec. 401. Studies.
Sec. 402. Temperance Flat.
Sec. 403. CALFED storage accountability.
Sec. 404. Water storage project construction.
TITLE V--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
Sec. 501. Offset for State Water Project.
Sec. 502. Area of origin protections.
Sec. 503. No redirected adverse impacts.
Sec. 504. Allocations for Sacramento Valley contractors.
Sec. 505. Effect on existing obligations.
[[Page H5255]]
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 601. Authorized service area.
Sec. 602. Oversight board for Restoration Fund.
Sec. 603. Water supply accounting.
Sec. 604. Implementation of water replacement plan.
Sec. 605. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 606. Transfer the New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project to
interested providers.
Sec. 607. Basin studies.
Sec. 608. Operations of the Trinity River Division.
Sec. 609. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 610. Amendment to definition.
TITLE VII--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Establishment of lead agency and cooperating agencies.
Sec. 704. Bureau responsibilities.
Sec. 705. Cooperating agency responsibilities.
Sec. 706. Funding to process permits.
TITLE VIII--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Definitions.
Sec. 803. Acceleration of studies.
Sec. 804. Expedited completion of reports.
Sec. 805. Project acceleration.
Sec. 806. Annual report to Congress.
TITLE IX--ACCELERATED REVENUE, REPAYMENT, AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE
ENHANCEMENT
Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Prepayment of certain repayment contracts between the United
States and contractors of federally developed water
supplies.
TITLE X--SAFETY OF DAMS
Sec. 1001. Authorization of additional project benefits.
TITLE XI--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION
Sec. 1101. Short title.
Sec. 1102. Definition of water right.
Sec. 1103. Treatment of water rights.
Sec. 1104. Recognition of State authority.
Sec. 1105. Effect of title.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) As established in the Proclamation of a State of
Emergency issued by the Governor of the State on January 17,
2014, the State is experiencing record dry conditions.
(2) Extremely dry conditions have persisted in the State
since 2012, and the drought conditions are likely to persist
into the future.
(3) The water supplies of the State are at record-low
levels, as indicated by the fact that all major Central
Valley Project reservoir levels were at 20-35 percent of
capacity as of September 25, 2014.
(4) The lack of precipitation has been a significant
contributing factor to the 6,091 fires experienced in the
State as of September 15, 2014, and which covered nearly
400,000 acres.
(5) According to a study released by the University of
California, Davis in July 2014, the drought has led to the
fallowing of 428,000 acres of farmland, loss of $810 million
in crop revenue, loss of $203 million in dairy and other
livestock value, and increased groundwater pumping costs by
$454 million. The statewide economic costs are estimated to
be $2.2 billion, with over 17,000 seasonal and part-time
agricultural jobs lost.
(6) CVPIA Level II water deliveries to refuges have also
been reduced by 25 percent in the north of Delta region, and
by 35 percent in the south of Delta region.
(7) Only one-sixth of the usual acres of rice fields are
being flooded this fall, which leads to a significant decline
in habitat for migratory birds and an increased risk of
disease at the remaining wetlands due to overcrowding of such
birds.
(8) The drought of 2013 through 2014 constitutes a serious
emergency that poses immediate and severe risks to human life
and safety and to the environment throughout the State.
(9) The serious emergency described in paragraph (4)
requires--
(A) immediate and credible action that respects the
complexity of the water system of the State and the
importance of the water system to the entire State; and
(B) policies that do not pit stakeholders against one
another, which history shows only leads to costly litigation
that benefits no one and prevents any real solutions.
(10) Data on the difference between water demand and
reliable water supplies for various regions of California
south of the Delta, including the San Joaquin Valley,
indicate there is a significant annual gap between reliable
water supplies to meet agricultural, municipal and
industrial, groundwater, and refuges water needs within the
Delta Division, San Luis Unit and Friant Division of the
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project south of
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the demands of
those areas. This gap varies depending on the methodology of
the analysis performed, but can be represented in the
following ways:
(A) For Central Valley Project South-of-Delta water service
contractors, if it is assumed that a water supply deficit is
the difference in the amount of water available for
allocation versus the maximum contract quantity, then the
water supply deficits that have developed from 1992 to 2014
as a result of legislative and regulatory changes besides
natural variations in hydrology during this timeframe range
between 720,000 and 1,100,000 acre-feet.
(B) For Central Valley Project and State Water Project
water service contractors south of the Delta and north of the
Tehachapi mountain range, if it is assumed that a water
supply deficit is the difference between reliable water
supplies, including maximum water contract deliveries, safe
yield of groundwater, safe yield of local and surface
supplies and long-term contracted water transfers, and water
demands, including water demands from agriculture, municipal
and industrial and refuge contractors, then the water supply
deficit ranges between approximately 2,500,000 to 2,700,000
acre-feet.
(11) Data of pumping activities at the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project delta pumps identifies that,
on average from Water Year 2009 to Water Year 2014, take of
Delta smelt is 80 percent less than allowable take levels
under the biological opinion issued December 15, 2008.
(12) Data of field sampling activities of the Interagency
Ecological Program located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary identifies that, on average from 2005 to 2013, the
program ``takes'' 3,500 delta smelt during annual surveys
with an authorized ``take'' level of 33,480 delta smelt
annually--according to the biological opinion issued December
9, 1997.
(13) In 2015, better information exists than was known in
2008 concerning conditions and operations that may or may not
lead to high salvage events that jeopardize the fish
populations, and what alternative management actions can be
taken to avoid jeopardy.
(14) Alternative management strategies, removing non-native
species, enhancing habitat, monitoring fish movement and
location in real-time, and improving water quality in the
Delta can contribute significantly to protecting and
recovering these endangered fish species, and at potentially
lower costs to water supplies.
(15) Resolution of fundamental policy questions concerning
the extent to which application of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 affects the operation of the Central Valley Project
and State Water Project is the responsibility of Congress.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Delta.--The term ``Delta'' means the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and the Suisun Marsh, as defined in sections
12220 and 29101 of the California Public Resources Code.
(2) Export pumping rates.--The term ``export pumping
rates'' means the rates of pumping at the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones
Pumping Plant and the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant, in the
southern Delta.
(3) Listed fish species.--The term ``listed fish species''
means listed salmonid species and the Delta smelt.
(4) Listed salmonid species.--The term ``listed salmonid
species'' means natural origin steelhead, natural origin
genetic spring run Chinook, and genetic winter run Chinook
salmon including hatchery steelhead or salmon populations
within the evolutionary significant unit (ESU) or distinct
population segment (DPS).
(5) Negative impact on the long-term survival.--The term
``negative impact on the long-term survival'' means to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of the survival of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species.
(6) OMR.--The term ``OMR'' means the Old and Middle River
in the Delta.
(7) OMR flow of -5,000 cubic feet per second.--The term
``OMR flow of -5,000 cubic feet per second'' means Old and
Middle River flow of negative 5,000 cubic feet per second as
described in--
(A) the smelt biological opinion; and
(B) the salmonid biological opinion.
(8) Salmonid biological opinion.--The term ``salmonid
biological opinion'' means the biological opinion issued by
the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009.
(9) Smelt biological opinion.--The term ``smelt biological
opinion'' means the biological opinion on the Long-Term
Operational Criteria and Plan for coordination of the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project issued by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service on December 15, 2008.
(10) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
TITLE I--ADJUSTING DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT BASED ON INCREASED REAL-TIME
MONITORING AND UPDATED SCIENCE
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(2) Delta smelt.--The term ``Delta smelt'' means the fish
species with the scientific name Hypomesus transpacificus.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
SEC. 102. REVISE INCIDENTAL TAKE LEVEL CALCULATION FOR DELTA
SMELT TO REFLECT NEW SCIENCE.
(a) Review and Modification.--Not later than October 1,
2016, and at least every five years thereafter, the Director,
in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies,
shall use the best scientific and commercial data available
to complete a review and, modify the method used to calculate
the incidental take levels for adult and larval/juvenile
Delta smelt in the smelt biological opinion that takes into
account all life stages, among other considerations--
(1) salvage information collected since at least 1993;
(2) updated or more recently developed statistical models;
(3) updated scientific and commercial data; and
(4) the most recent information regarding the environmental
factors affecting Delta smelt salvage.
[[Page H5256]]
(b) Modified Incidental Take Level.--Unless the Director
determines in writing that one or more of the requirements
described in paragraphs (1) through (4) are not appropriate,
the modified incidental take level described in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) be normalized for the abundance of prespawning adult
Delta smelt using the Fall Midwater Trawl Index or other
index;
(2) be based on a simulation of the salvage that would have
occurred from 1993 through 2012 if OMR flow has been
consistent with the smelt biological opinions;
(3) base the simulation on a correlation between annual
salvage rates and historic water clarity and OMR flow during
the adult salvage period; and
(4) set the incidental take level as the 80 percent upper
prediction interval derived from simulated salvage rates
since at least 1993.
SEC. 103. FACTORING INCREASED REAL-TIME MONITORING AND
UPDATED SCIENCE INTO DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director shall use the best scientific
and commercial data available to implement, continuously
evaluate, and refine or amend, as appropriate, the reasonable
and prudent alternative described in the smelt biological
opinion, and any successor opinions or court order. The
Secretary shall make all significant decisions under the
smelt biological opinion, or any successor opinions that
affect Central Valley Project and State Water Project
operations, in writing, and shall document the significant
facts upon which such decisions are made, consistent with
section 706 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Increased Monitoring To Inform Real-Time Operations.--
The Secretary shall conduct additional surveys, on an annual
basis at the appropriate time of the year based on
environmental conditions, in collaboration with other Delta
science interests.
(1) In implementing this section, the Secretary shall--
(A) use the most accurate survey methods available for the
detection of Delta smelt to determine the extent that adult
Delta smelt are distributed in relation to certain levels of
turbidity, or other environmental factors that may influence
salvage rate; and
(B) use results from appropriate survey methods for the
detection of Delta smelt to determine how the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project may be operated more
efficiently to minimize salvage while maximizing export
pumping rates without causing a significant negative impact
on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt.
(2) During the period beginning on December 1, 2015, and
ending March 31, 2016, and in each successive December
through March period, if suspended sediment loads enter the
Delta from the Sacramento River and the suspended sediment
loads appear likely to raise turbidity levels in the Old
River north of the export pumps from values below 12
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) to values above 12 NTU,
the Secretary shall--
(A) conduct daily monitoring using appropriate survey
methods at locations including, but not limited to, the
vicinity of Station 902 to determine the extent that adult
Delta smelt are moving with turbidity toward the export
pumps; and
(B) use results from the monitoring surveys referenced in
paragraph (A) to determine how increased trawling can inform
daily real-time Central Valley Project and State Water
Project operations to minimize salvage while maximizing
export pumping rates without causing a significant negative
impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt.
(c) Periodic Review of Monitoring.--Within 12 months of the
date of enactment of this title, and at least once every 5
years thereafter, the Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate whether the monitoring program under
subsection (b), combined with other monitoring programs for
the Delta, is providing sufficient data to inform Central
Valley Project and State Water Project operations to minimize
salvage while maximizing export pumping rates without causing
a significant negative impact on the long-term survival of
the Delta smelt; and
(2) determine whether the monitoring efforts should be
changed in the short or long term to provide more useful
data.
(d) Delta Smelt Distribution Study.--
(1) In general.--No later than January 1, 2016, and at
least every five years thereafter, the Secretary, in
collaboration with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the California Department of Water Resources,
public water agencies, and other interested entities, shall
implement new targeted sampling and monitoring specifically
designed to understand Delta smelt abundance, distribution,
and the types of habitat occupied by Delta smelt during all
life stages.
(2) Sampling.--The Delta smelt distribution study shall, at
a minimum--
(A) include recording water quality and tidal data;
(B) be designed to understand Delta smelt abundance,
distribution, habitat use, and movement throughout the Delta,
Suisun Marsh, and other areas occupied by the Delta smelt
during all seasons;
(C) consider areas not routinely sampled by existing
monitoring programs, including wetland channels, near-shore
water, depths below 35 feet, and shallow water; and
(D) use survey methods, including sampling gear, best
suited to collect the most accurate data for the type of
sampling or monitoring.
(e) Scientifically Supported Implementation of OMR Flow
Requirements.--In implementing the provisions of the smelt
biological opinion, or any successor biological opinion or
court order, pertaining to management of reverse flow in the
Old and Middle Rivers, the Secretary shall--
(1) consider the relevant provisions of the biological
opinion or any successor biological opinion;
(2) to maximize Central Valley project and State Water
Project water supplies, manage export pumping rates to
achieve a reverse OMR flow rate of -5,000 cubic feet per
second unless information developed by the Secretary under
paragraphs (3) and (4) leads the Secretary to reasonably
conclude that a less negative OMR flow rate is necessary to
avoid a negative impact on the long-term survival of the
Delta smelt. If information available to the Secretary
indicates that a reverse OMR flow rate more negative than
-5,000 cubic feet per second can be established without an
imminent negative impact on the long-term survival of the
Delta smelt, the Secretary shall manage export pumping rates
to achieve that more negative OMR flow rate;
(3) document in writing any significant facts about real-
time conditions relevant to the determinations of OMR reverse
flow rates, including--
(A) whether targeted real-time fish monitoring in the Old
River pursuant to this section, including monitoring in the
vicinity of Station 902, indicates that a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt
is imminent; and
(B) whether near-term forecasts with available salvage
models show under prevailing conditions that OMR flow of
-5,000 cubic feet per second or higher will cause a
significant negative impact on the long-term survival of the
Delta smelt;
(4) show in writing that any determination to manage OMR
reverse flow at rates less negative than -5,000 cubic feet
per second is necessary to avoid a significant negative
impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt,
including an explanation of the data examined and the
connection between those data and the choice made, after
considering--
(A) the distribution of Delta smelt throughout the Delta;
(B) the potential effects of documented, quantified
entrainment on subsequent Delta smelt abundance;
(C) the water temperature;
(D) other significant factors relevant to the
determination; and
(E) whether any alternative measures could have a
substantially lesser water supply impact; and
(5) for any subsequent biological opinion, make the showing
required in paragraph (4) for any determination to manage OMR
reverse flow at rates less negative than the most negative
limit in the biological opinion if the most negative limit in
the biological opinion is more negative than -5,000 cubic
feet per second.
(f) Memorandum of Understanding.--No later than December 1,
2015, the Commissioner and the Director will execute a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure that the smelt
biological opinion is implemented in a manner that maximizes
water supply while complying with applicable laws and
regulations. If that MOU alters any procedures set out in the
biological opinion, there will be no need to reinitiate
consultation if those changes will not have a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival on listed species
and the implementation of the MOU would not be a major change
to implementation of the biological opinion. Any change to
procedures that does not create a significant negative impact
on the long-term survival to listed species will not alter
application of the take permitted by the incidental take
statement in the biological opinion under section 7(o)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(g) Calculation of Reverse Flow in OMR.--Within 90 days of
the enactment of this title, the Secretary is directed, in
consultation with the California Department of Water
Resources to revise the method used to calculate reverse flow
in Old and Middle Rivers for implementation of the reasonable
and prudent alternatives in the smelt biological opinion and
the salmonid biological opinion, and any succeeding
biological opinions, for the purpose of increasing Central
Valley Project and State Water Project water supplies. The
method of calculating reverse flow in Old and Middle Rivers
shall be reevaluated not less than every five years
thereafter to achieve maximum export pumping rates within
limits established by the smelt biological opinion, the
salmonid biological opinion, and any succeeding biological
opinions.
TITLE II--ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Assistant administrator.--The term ``Assistant
Administrator'' means the Assistant Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for
Fisheries.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Commerce.
(3) Other affected interests.--The term ``other affected
interests'' means the State of California, Indian tribes,
subdivisions of the State of California, public water
agencies and those who benefit directly and indirectly from
the operations of the Central Valley Project and the State
Water Project.
(4) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
(5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
SEC. 202. PROCESS FOR ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS
RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE.
(a) General Directive.--The reasonable and prudent
alternative described in the salmonid
[[Page H5257]]
biological opinion allows for and anticipates adjustments in
Central Valley Project and State Water Project operation
parameters to reflect the best scientific and commercial data
currently available, and authorizes efforts to test and
evaluate improvements in operations that will meet applicable
regulatory requirements and maximize Central Valley Project
and State Water Project water supplies and reliability.
Implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative
described in the salmonid biological opinion shall be
adjusted accordingly as new scientific and commercial data
are developed. The Commissioner and the Assistant
Administrator shall fully utilize these authorities as
described below.
(b) Annual Reviews of Certain Central Valley Project and
State Water Project Operations.--No later than December 31,
2016, and at least annually thereafter:
(1) The Commissioner, with the assistance of the Assistant
Administrator, shall examine and identify adjustments to the
initiation of Action IV.2.3 as set forth in the Biological
Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of
the Central Valley Project and State Water Project,
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009, pertaining
to negative OMR flows, subject to paragraph (5).
(2) The Commissioner, with the assistance of the Assistant
Administrator, shall examine and identify adjustments in the
timing, triggers or other operational details relating to the
implementation of pumping restrictions in Action IV.2.1
pertaining to the inflow to export ratio, subject to
paragraph (5).
(3) Pursuant to the consultation and assessments carried
out under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the
Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator shall jointly
make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and to
the Secretary on adjustments to project operations that, in
the exercise of the adaptive management provisions of the
salmonid biological opinion, will reduce water supply impacts
of the salmonid biological opinion on the Central Valley
Project and the California State Water Project and are
consistent with the requirements of applicable law and as
further described in subsection (c).
(4) The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior shall
direct the Commissioner and Assistant Administrator to
implement recommended adjustments to Central Valley Project
and State Water Project operations for which the conditions
under subsection (c) are met.
(5) The Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall
review and identify adjustments to Central Valley Project and
State Water Project operations with water supply restrictions
in any successor biological opinion to the salmonid
biological opinion, applying the provisions of this section
to those water supply restrictions where there are references
to Actions IV.2.1 and IV.2.3.
(c) Implementation of Operational Adjustments.--After
reviewing the recommendations under subsection (b), the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary shall direct the
Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator to implement
those operational adjustments, or any combination, for which,
in aggregate--
(1) the net effect on listed species is equivalent to those
of the underlying project operational parameters in the
salmonid biological opinion, taking into account both--
(A) efforts to minimize the adverse effects of the
adjustment to project operations; and
(B) whatever additional actions or measures may be
implemented in conjunction with the adjustments to operations
to offset the adverse effects to listed species, consistent
with (d), that are in excess of the adverse effects of the
underlying operational parameters, if any; and
(2) the effects of the adjustment can be reasonably
expected to fall within the incidental take authorizations.
(d) Evaluation of Offsetting Measures.--When examining and
identifying opportunities to offset the potential adverse
effect of adjustments to operations under subsection
(c)(1)(B), the Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator
shall take into account the potential species survival
improvements that are likely to result from other measures
which, if implemented in conjunction with such adjustments,
would offset adverse effects, if any, of the adjustments.
When evaluating offsetting measures, the Commissioner and the
Assistant Administrator shall consider the type, timing and
nature of the adverse effects, if any, to specific species
and ensure that the measures likely provide equivalent
overall benefits to the listed species in the aggregate, as
long as the change will not cause a significant negative
impact on the long-term survival of a listed salmonid
species.
(e) Framework for Examining Opportunities To Minimize or
Offset the Potential Adverse Effect of Adjustments to
Operations.--Not later than December 31, 2015, and every five
years thereafter, the Assistant Administrator shall, in
collaboration with the Director of the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and for each listed salmonid
species, issue estimates of the increase in through-Delta
survival the Secretary expects to be achieved--
(1) through restrictions on export pumping rates as
specified by Action IV.2.3 as compared to limiting OMR flow
to a fixed rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second within the
time period Action IV.2.3 is applicable, based on a given
rate of San Joaquin River inflow to the Delta and holding
other relevant factors constant;
(2) through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions
on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1 as
compared to the restrictions in the April/May period imposed
by the State Water Resources Control Board decision D-1641,
based on a given rate of San Joaquin River inflow to the
Delta and holding other relevant factors constant;
(3) through physical habitat restoration improvements;
(4) through predation control programs;
(5) through the installation of temporary barriers, the
management of Cross Channel Gates operations, and other
projects affecting flow in the Delta;
(6) through salvaging fish that have been entrained near
the entrance to Clifton Court Forebay;
(7) through any other management measures that may provide
equivalent or better protections for listed species while
maximizing export pumping rates without causing a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed
salmonid species; and
(8) through development and implementation of conservation
hatchery programs for salmon and steelhead to aid in the
recovery of listed salmon and steelhead species.
(f) Survival Estimates.--
(1) To the maximum extent practicable, the Assistant
Administrator shall make quantitative estimates of survival
such as a range of percentage increases in through-Delta
survival that could result from the management measures, and
if the scientific information is lacking for quantitative
estimates, shall do so on qualitative terms based upon the
best available science.
(2) If the Assistant Administrator provides qualitative
survival estimates for a species resulting from one or more
management measures, the Secretary shall, to the maximum
extent feasible, rank the management measures described in
subsection (e) in terms of their most likely expected
contribution to increased through-Delta survival relative to
the other measures.
(3) If at the time the Assistant Administrator conducts the
reviews under subsection (b), the Secretary has not issued an
estimate of increased through-Delta survival from different
management measures pursuant to subsection (e), the Secretary
shall compare the protections to the species from different
management measures based on the best scientific and
commercial data available at the time.
(g) Comparison of Adverse Consequences for Alternative
Management Measures of Equivalent Protection for a Species.--
(1) For the purposes of this subsection and subsection
(c)--
(A) the alternative management measure or combination of
alternative management measures identified in paragraph (2)
shall be known as the ``equivalent alternative measure'';
(B) the existing measure or measures identified in
subparagraphs (2) (A), (B), (C), or (D) shall be known as the
``equivalent existing measure''; and
(C) an ``equivalent increase in through-Delta survival
rates for listed salmonid species'' shall mean an increase in
through-Delta survival rates that is equivalent when
considering the change in through-Delta survival rates for
the listed salmonid species in the aggregate, and not the
same change for each individual species, as long as the
change in survival rates will not cause a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed
salmonid species.
(2) As part of the reviews of project operations pursuant
to subsection (b), the Assistant Administrator shall
determine whether any alternative management measures or
combination of alternative management measures listed in
subsection (e) (3) through (8) would provide an increase in
through-Delta survival rates for listed salmonid species that
is equivalent to the increase in through-Delta survival rates
for listed salmonid species from the following:
(A) Through restrictions on export pumping rates as
specified by Action IV.2.3, as compared to limiting OMR flow
to a fixed rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second within the
time period Action IV.2.3 is applicable.
(B) Through restrictions on export pumping rates as
specified by Action IV.2.3, as compared to a modification of
Action IV.2.3 that would provide additional water supplies,
other than that described in subparagraph (A).
(C) Through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions
on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1, as
compared to the restrictions in the April/May period imposed
by the State Water Resources Control Board decision D-1641.
(D) Through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions
on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1, as
compared to a modification of Action IV.2.1 that would reduce
water supply impacts of the salmonid biological opinion on
the Central Valley Project and the California State Water
Project, other than that described in subparagraph (C).
(3) If the Assistant Administrator identifies an equivalent
alternative measure pursuant to paragraph (2), the Assistant
Administrator shall determine whether--
(A) it is technically feasible and within Federal
jurisdiction to implement the equivalent alternative measure;
(B) the State of California, or subdivision thereof, or
local agency with jurisdiction has certified in writing
within 10 calendar days to the Assistant Administrator that
it has the authority and capability to implement the
pertinent equivalent alternative measure; or
(C) the adverse consequences of doing so are less than the
adverse consequences of the equivalent existing measure,
including a concise evaluation of the adverse consequences to
other affected interests.
(4) If the Assistant Administrator makes the determinations
in subparagraph (3)(A) or (3)(B), the Commissioner shall
adjust project operations to implement the equivalent
alternative measure in place of the equivalent existing
measure in order to increase export rates of pumping to the
greatest extent possible while maintaining a net combined
effect of equivalent through-Delta survival rates for the
listed salmonid species.
[[Page H5258]]
(h) Tracking Adverse Effects Beyond the Range of Effects
Accounted for in the Salmonid Biological Opinion and
Coordinated Operation With the Delta Smelt Biological
Opinion.--
(1) Among the adjustments to the project operations
considered through the adaptive management process under this
section, the Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner
shall--
(A) evaluate the effects on listed salmonid species and
water supply of the potential adjustment to operational
criteria described in subparagraph (B); and
(B) consider requiring that before some or all of the
provisions of Actions IV.2.1. or IV.2.3 are imposed in any
specific instance, the Assistant Administrator show that the
implementation of these provisions in that specific instance
is necessary to avoid a significant negative impact on the
long-term survival of a listed salmonid species.
(2) The Assistant Administrator, the Director, and the
Commissioner, in coordination with State officials as
appropriate, shall establish operational criteria to
coordinate management of OMR flows under the smelt and
salmonid biological opinions, in order to take advantage of
opportunities to provide additional water supplies from the
coordinated implementation of the biological opinions.
(3) The Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall
document the effects of any adaptive management decisions
related to the coordinated operation of the smelt and
salmonid biological opinions that prioritizes the maintenance
of one species at the expense of the other.
(i) Real-Time Monitoring and Management.--Notwithstanding
the calendar based triggers described in the salmonid
biological opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA),
the Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall not
limit OMR reverse flow to -5,000 cubic feet per second unless
current monitoring data indicate that this OMR flow
limitation is reasonably required to avoid a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed
salmonid species.
(j) Evaluation and Implementation of Management Measures.--
If the quantitative estimates of through-Delta survival
established by the Secretary for the adjustments in
subsection (b)(2) exceed the through-Delta survival
established for the RPAs, the Secretary shall evaluate and
implement the management measures in subsection (b)(2) as a
prerequisite to implementing the RPAs contained in the
Salmonid Biological Opinion.
(k) Accordance With Other Law.--Consistent with section 706
of title 5, United States Code, decisions of the Assistant
Administrator and the Commissioner described in subsections
(b) through (j) shall be made in writing, on the basis of
best scientific and commercial data currently available, and
shall include an explanation of the data examined at the
connection between those data and the decisions made.
SEC. 203. NON-FEDERAL PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS
FISH IN THE STANISLAUS RIVER.
(a) Establishment of Nonnative Predator Fish Removal
Program.--The Secretary and the districts, in consultation
with the Director, shall jointly develop and conduct a
nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative
striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass,
and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus
River. The program shall--
(1) be scientifically based;
(2) include methods to quantify the number and size of
predator fish removed each year, the impact of such removal
on the overall abundance of predator fish, and the impact of
such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish
found in the Stanislaus River by, among other things,
evaluating the number of juvenile anadromous fish that
migrate past the rotary screw trap located at Caswell;
(3) among other methods, use wire fyke trapping, portable
resistance board weirs, and boat electrofishing; and
(4) be implemented as quickly as possible following the
issuance of all necessary scientific research.
(b) Management.--The management of the program shall be the
joint responsibility of the Secretary and the districts. Such
parties shall work collaboratively to ensure the performance
of the program, and shall discuss and agree upon, among other
things, changes in the structure, management, personnel,
techniques, strategy, data collection, reporting, and conduct
of the program.
(c) Conduct.--
(1) In general.--By agreement between the Secretary and the
districts, the program may be conducted by their own
personnel, qualified private contractors hired by the
districts, personnel of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to
the National Marine Fisheries Service, or a combination
thereof.
(2) Participation by the national marine fisheries
service.--If the districts elect to conduct the program using
their own personnel or qualified private contractors hired by
them in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary may
assign an employee of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to
the National Marine Fisheries Service, to be present for all
activities performed in the field. Such presence shall ensure
compliance with the agreed-upon elements specified in
subsection (b). The districts shall pay the cost of such
participation in accordance with subsection (d).
(3) Timing of election.--The districts shall notify the
Secretary of their election on or before October 15 of each
calendar year of the program. Such an election shall apply to
the work performed in the subsequent calendar year.
(d) Funding.--
(1) In general.--The districts shall be responsible for 100
percent of the cost of the program.
(2) Contributed funds.--The Secretary may accept and use
contributions of funds from the districts to carry out
activities under the program.
(3) Estimation of cost.--On or before December 1 of each
year of the program, the Secretary shall submit to the
districts an estimate of the cost to be incurred by the
National Marine Fisheries Service for the program in the
following calendar year, if any, including the cost of any
data collection and posting under subsection (e). If an
amount equal to the estimate is not provided through
contributions pursuant to paragraph (2) before December 31 of
that year--
(A) the Secretary shall have no obligation to conduct the
program activities otherwise scheduled for such following
calendar year until such amount is contributed by the
districts; and
(B) the districts may not conduct any aspect of the program
until such amount is contributed by the districts.
(4) Accounting.--On or before September 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall provide to the districts an accounting of the
costs incurred by the Secretary for the program in the
preceding calendar year. If the amount contributed by the
districts pursuant to paragraph (2) for that year was greater
than the costs incurred by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall--
(A) apply the excess contributions to costs of activities
to be performed by the Secretary under the program, if any,
in the next calendar year; or
(B) if no such activities are to be performed, repay the
excess contribution to the districts.
(e) Posting and Evaluation.--On or before the 15th day of
each month, the Secretary shall post on the Internet website
of the National Marine Fisheries Service a tabular summary of
the raw data collected under the program in the preceding
month.
(f) Implementation.--The program is hereby found to be
consistent with the requirements of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575). No provision,
plan or definition established or required by the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) shall be
used to prohibit the imposition of the program, or to prevent
the accomplishment of its goals.
(g) Treatment of Striped Bass.--For purposes of the
application of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) with respect to the
program, striped bass shall not be treated as anadromous
fish.
(h) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``districts'' means the Oakdale Irrigation District and the
South San Joaquin Irrigation District, California.
SEC. 204. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT CALFED INVASIVE SPECIES
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the
Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the
Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other relevant agencies
and interested parties, shall begin pilot projects to
implement the invasive species control program authorized
pursuant to section 103(d)(6)(A)(iv) of Public Law 108-361
(118 Stat. 1690).
(b) Requirements.--The pilot projects shall--
(1) seek to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation, predators,
and other competitors which contribute to the decline of
native listed pelagic and anadromous species that occupy the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta; and
(2) remove, reduce, or control the effects of species,
including Asiatic clams, silversides, gobies, Brazilian water
weed, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, striped bass,
crappie, bluegill, white and channel catfish, and brown
bullheads.
(c) Sunset.--The authorities provided under this subsection
shall expire seven years after the Secretaries commence
implementation of the pilot projects pursuant to subsection
(a).
(d) Emergency Environmental Reviews.--To expedite the
environmentally beneficial programs for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species, the Secretaries shall
consult with the Council on Environmental Quality in
accordance with section 1506.11 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations), to develop
alternative arrangements to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for
the projects pursuant to subsection (a).
TITLE III--OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND DROUGHT RELIEF
SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Central valley project.--The term ``Central Valley
Project'' has the meaning given the term in section 3403 of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-
575; 106 Stat. 4707).
(2) Reclamation project.--The term ``Reclamation Project''
means a project constructed pursuant to the authorities of
the reclamation laws and whose facilities are wholly or
partially located in the State.
(3) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(B) the Secretary of Commerce; and
(C) the Secretary of the Interior.
(4) State water project.--The term ``State Water Project''
means the water project described by California Water Code
section 11550 et seq. and operated by the California
Department of Water Resources.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
SEC. 302. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN TIMES OF DROUGHT.
(a) Water Supplies.--For the period of time such that in
any year that the Sacramento Valley Index is 6.5 or lower, or
at the request of the
[[Page H5259]]
State of California, and until two succeeding years following
either of those events have been completed where the final
Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, the Secretaries
shall provide the maximum quantity of water supplies
practicable to all individuals or district who receive
Central Valley Project water under water service or
repayments contracts, water rights settlement contracts,
exchange contracts, or refuge contracts or agreements entered
into prior to or after the date of enactment of this title;
State Water Project contractors, and any other tribe,
locality, water agency, or municipality in the State, by
approving, consistent with applicable laws (including
regulations), projects and operations to provide additional
water supplies as quickly as practicable based on available
information to address the emergency conditions.
(b) Administration.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretaries shall, consistent with applicable laws (including
regulations)--
(1) issue all necessary permit decisions under the
authority of the Secretaries not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretaries receive a completed application
from the State to place and use temporary barriers or
operable gates in Delta channels to improve water quantity
and quality for the State Water Project and the Central
Valley Project south of Delta water contractors and other
water users, on the condition that the barriers or operable
gates--
(A) do not result in a significant negative impact on the
long-term survival of listed species within the Delta and
provide benefits or have a neutral impact on in-Delta water
user water quality; and
(B) are designed so that formal consultations under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) are
not necessary;
(2) require the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Commissioner of Reclamation--
(A) to complete, not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Director or the Commissioner receives a complete
written request for water transfer, all requirements under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) necessary to make final permit decisions on the
request; and
(B) to approve any water transfer request described in
subparagraph (A) to maximize the quantity of water supplies
available for nonhabitat uses, on the condition that actions
associated with the water transfer comply with applicable
Federal laws (including regulations);
(3) adopt a 1:1 inflow to export ratio, as measured as a 3-
day running average at Vernalis during the period beginning
on April 1, and ending on May 31, absent a determination in
writing that a more restrictive inflow to export ratio is
required to avoid a significant negative impact on the long-
term survival of a listed salmonid species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
provided that the 1:1 inflow to export ratio shall apply for
the increment of increased flow of the San Joaquin River
resulting from the voluntary sale, transfers, or exchanges of
water from agencies with rights to divert water from the San
Joaquin River or its tributaries and provided that the
movement of the acquired, transferred, or exchanged water
through the Delta consistent with the Central Valley
Project's and the State Water Project's permitted water
rights and provided that movement of the Central Valley
Project water is consistent with the requirements of section
3405(a)(1)(H) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act;
and
(4) allow and facilitate, consistent with existing
priorities, water transfers through the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones
Pumping Plant or the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant from April
1 to November 30 provided water transfers comply with State
law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
(c) Accelerated Project Decision and Elevation.--
(1) In general.--On request by the Governor of the State,
the Secretaries shall use the expedited procedures under this
subsection to make final decisions relating to a Federal
project or operation, or to local or State projects or
operations that require decisions by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce to provide additional
water supplies if the project's or operation's purpose is to
provide relief for emergency drought conditions pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Request for resolution.--
(A) In general.--On request by the Governor of the State,
the Secretaries referenced in paragraph (1), or the head of
another Federal agency responsible for carrying out a review
of a project, as applicable, the Secretary of the Interior
shall convene a final project decision meeting with the heads
of all relevant Federal agencies to decide whether to approve
a project to provide relief for emergency drought conditions.
(B) Meeting.--The Secretary of the Interior shall convene a
meeting requested under subparagraph (A) not later than 7
days after the date on which the meeting request is received.
(3) Notification.--On receipt of a request for a meeting
under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior shall
notify the heads of all relevant Federal agencies of the
request, including information on the project to be reviewed
and the date of the meeting.
(4) Decision.--Not later than 10 days after the date on
which a meeting is requested under paragraph (2), the head of
the relevant Federal agency shall issue a final decision on
the project, subject to subsection (e)(2).
(5) Meeting convened by secretary.--The Secretary of the
Interior may convene a final project decision meeting under
this subsection at any time, at the discretion of the
Secretary, regardless of whether a meeting is requested under
paragraph (2).
(d) Application.--To the extent that a Federal agency,
other than the agencies headed by the Secretaries, has a role
in approving projects described in subsections (a) and (b),
this section shall apply to those Federal agencies.
(e) Limitation.--Nothing in this section authorizes the
Secretaries to approve projects--
(1) that would otherwise require congressional
authorization; or
(2) without following procedures required by applicable
law.
(f) Drought Plan.--For the period of time such that in any
year that the Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or at
the request of the State of California, and until two
succeeding years following either of those events have been
completed where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or
greater, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, in
consultation with appropriate State officials, shall develop
a drought operations plan that is consistent with the
provisions of this Act including the provisions that are
intended to provide additional water supplies that could be
of assistance during the current drought.
SEC. 303. OPERATION OF CROSS-CHANNEL GATES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce and the
Secretary of the Interior shall jointly--
(1) authorize and implement activities to ensure that the
Delta Cross Channel Gates remain open to the maximum extent
practicable using findings from the United States Geological
Survey on diurnal behavior of juvenile salmonids, timed to
maximize the peak flood tide period and provide water supply
and water quality benefits for the duration of the drought
emergency declaration of the State, and for the period of
time such that in any year that the Sacramento Valley index
is 6.5 or lower, or at the request of the State of
California, and until two succeeding years following either
of those events have been completed where the final
Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, consistent with
operational criteria and monitoring criteria set forth into
the Order Approving a Temporary Urgency Change in License and
Permit Terms in Response to Drought Conditions of the
California State Water Resources Control Board, effective
January 31, 2014 (or a successor order) and other
authorizations associated with it;
(2) with respect to the operation of the Delta Cross
Channel Gates described in paragraph (1), collect data on the
impact of that operation on--
(A) species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(B) water quality; and
(C) water supply;
(3) collaborate with the California Department of Water
Resources to install a deflection barrier at Georgiana Slough
in coordination with Delta Cross Channel Gate diurnal
operations to protect migrating salmonids, consistent with
knowledge gained from activities carried out during 2014 and
2015;
(4) evaluate the combined salmonid survival in light of
activities carried out pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (3)
in deciding how to operate the Delta Cross Channel gates to
enhance salmonid survival and water supply benefits; and
(5) not later than May 15, 2016, submit to the appropriate
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate a
notice and explanation on the extent to which the gates are
able to remain open.
(b) Recommendations.--After assessing the information
collected under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior
shall recommend revisions to the operation of the Delta
Cross-Channel Gates, to the Central Valley Project, and to
the State Water Project, including, if appropriate, any
reasonable and prudent alternative contained in the
biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service on June 4, 2009, that are likely to produce water
supply benefits without causing a significant negative impact
on the long-term survival of the listed fish species within
the Delta or on water quality.
SEC. 304. FLEXIBILITY FOR EXPORT/INFLOW RATIO.
For the period of time such that in any year that the
Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or at the request of
the State of California, and until two succeeding years
following either of those events have been completed where
the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation shall continue to
vary the averaging period of the Delta Export/Inflow ratio
pursuant to the California State Water Resources Control
Board decision D1641--
(1) to operate to a 35-percent Export/Inflow ratio with a
3-day averaging period on the rising limb of a Delta inflow
hydrograph; and
(2) to operate to a 14-day averaging period on the falling
limb of the Delta inflow hydrograph.
SEC. 305. EMERGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS.
(a) NEPA Compliance.--To minimize the time spent carrying
out environmental reviews and to deliver water quickly that
is needed to address emergency drought conditions in the
State during the duration of an emergency drought
declaration, the Secretaries shall, in carrying out this Act,
consult with the Council on Environmental Quality in
accordance with section 1506.11 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (including successor regulations), to develop
alternative arrangements to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
during the emergency.
(b) Determinations.--For the purposes of this section, a
Secretary may deem a project to be in compliance with all
necessary environmental regulations and reviews if the
Secretary determines that the immediate implementation of the
project is necessary to address--
(1) human health and safety; or
(2) a specific and imminent loss of agriculture production
upon which an identifiable region
[[Page H5260]]
depends for 25 percent or more of its tax revenue used to
support public services including schools, fire or police
services, city or county health facilities, unemployment
services or other associated social services.
SEC. 306. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR REGULAR PROJECT
OPERATIONS.
The Secretaries shall, consistent with applicable laws
(including regulations)--
(1) in coordination with the California Department of Water
Resources and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
implement offsite upstream projects in the Delta and upstream
of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin basins that offset
the effects on species listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) due to activities carried out pursuant this Act, as
determined by the Secretaries;
(2) manage reverse flow in the Old and Middle Rivers at
-6,100 cubic feet per second if real-time monitoring
indicates that flows of -6,100 cubic feet per second or more
negative can be established for specific periods without
causing a significant negative impact on the long-term
survival of the Delta smelt, or if real-time monitoring does
not support flows of -6,100 cubic feet per second than manage
OMR flows at -5,000 cubic feet per second subject to section
103(e) (3) and (4); and
(3) use all available scientific tools to identify any
changes to real-time operations of the Bureau of Reclamation,
State, and local water projects that could result in the
availability of additional water supplies.
SEC. 307. TEMPORARY OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FIRST FEW
STORMS OF THE WATER YEAR.
(a) In General.--Consistent with avoiding a significant
negative impact on the long-term survival in the short term
upon listed fish species beyond the range of those authorized
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and other
environmental protections under subsection (e), the
Secretaries shall authorize the Central Valley Project and
the State Water Project, combined, to operate at levels that
result in negative OMR flows at -7,500 cubic feet per second
(based on United States Geological Survey gauges on Old and
Middle Rivers) daily average for 56 cumulative days after
October 1 as described in subsection (c).
(b) Days of Temporary Operational Flexibility.--The
temporary operational flexibility described in subsection (a)
shall be authorized on days that the California Department of
Water Resources determines the daily average river flow of
the Sacramento River is at, or above, 17,000 cubic feet per
second as measured at the Sacramento River at Freeport gauge
maintained by the United States Geologic Survey.
(c) Compliance With Endangered Species Act
Authorizations.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretaries may continue to impose any requirements under the
smelt and salmonid biological opinions during any period of
temporary operational flexibility as they determine are
reasonably necessary to avoid an additional significant
negative impacts on the long-term survival of a listed fish
species beyond the range of those authorized under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, provided that the
requirements imposed do not reduce water supplies available
for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
(d) Other Environmental Protections.--
(1) State law.--The Secretaries' actions under this section
shall be consistent with applicable regulatory requirements
under State law.
(2) First sediment flush.--During the first flush of
sediment out of the Delta in each water year, and provided
that such determination is based upon objective evidence, OMR
flow may be managed at rates less negative than -5,000 cubic
feet per second for a minimum duration to avoid movement of
adult Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) to areas in the
southern Delta that would be likely to increase entrainment
at Central Valley Project and State Water Project pumping
plants.
(3) Applicability of opinion.--This section shall not
affect the application of the salmonid biological opinion
from April 1 to May 31, unless the Secretary of Commerce
finds that some or all of such applicable requirements may be
adjusted during this time period to provide emergency water
supply relief without resulting in additional adverse effects
beyond those authorized under the Endangered Species Act of
1973. In addition to any other actions to benefit water
supply, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce shall consider allowing through-Delta water
transfers to occur during this period if they can be
accomplished consistent with section 3405(a)(1)(H) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Water transfers
solely or exclusively through the State Water Project are not
required to be consistent with section 3405(a)(1)(H) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
(4) Monitoring.--During operations under this section, the
Commissioner of Reclamation, in coordination with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall undertake a
monitoring program and other data gathering to ensure
incidental take levels are not exceeded, and to identify
potential negative impacts and actions, if any, necessary to
mitigate impacts of the temporary operational flexibility to
species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(e) Technical Adjustments to Target Period.--If, before
temporary operational flexibility has been implemented on 56
cumulative days, the Secretaries operate the Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project combined at levels that
result in OMR flows less negative than -7,500 cubic feet per
second during days of temporary operational flexibility as
defined in subsection (c), the duration of such operation
shall not be counted toward the 56 cumulative days specified
in subsection (a).
(f) Emergency Consultation; Effect on Running Averages.--
(1) If necessary to implement the provisions of this
section, the Commissioner is authorized to take any action
necessary to implement this section for up to 56 cumulative
days. If during the 56 cumulative days the Commissioner
determines that actions necessary to implement this section
will exceed 56 days, the Commissioner shall use the emergency
consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 and its implementing regulation at section 402.05 of
title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, to temporarily adjust
the operating criteria under the biological opinions--
(A) solely for extending beyond the 56 cumulative days for
additional days of temporary operational flexibility--
(i) no more than necessary to achieve the purposes of this
section consistent with the environmental protections in
subsections (d) and (e); and
(ii) including, as appropriate, adjustments to ensure that
the actual flow rates during the periods of temporary
operational flexibility do not count toward the 5-day and 14-
day running averages of tidally filtered daily OMR flow
requirements under the biological opinions, or
(B) for other adjustments to operating criteria or to take
other urgent actions to address water supply shortages for
the least amount of time or volume of diversion necessary as
determined by the Commissioner.
(2) Following the conclusion of the 56 cumulative days of
temporary operational flexibility, or the extended number of
days covered by the emergency consultation procedures, the
Commissioner shall not reinitiate consultation on these
adjusted operations, and no mitigation shall be required, if
the effects on listed fish species of these operations under
this section remain within the range of those authorized
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). If the Commissioner reinitiates consultation, no
mitigation measures shall be required.
(g) Level of Detail Required for Analysis.--In articulating
the determinations required under this section, the
Secretaries shall fully satisfy the requirements herein but
shall not be expected to provide a greater level of
supporting detail for the analysis than feasible to provide
within the short timeframe permitted for timely
decisionmaking in response to changing conditions in the
Delta.
SEC. 308. EXPEDITING WATER TRANSFERS.
(a) In General.--Section 3405(a) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat.
4709(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;
(2) in the matter preceding paragraph (4) (as so
designated)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``In order to'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--In order to''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``Except as
provided herein'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Terms.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section'';
(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) (as so designated)
the following:
``(2) Expedited transfer of water.--The Secretary shall
take all necessary actions to facilitate and expedite
transfers of Central Valley Project water in accordance
with--
``(A) this Act;
``(B) any other applicable provision of the reclamation
laws; and
``(C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).'';
(4) in paragraph (4) (as so designated)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``to combination'' and
inserting ``or combination''; and
(B) by striking ``3405(a)(2) of this title'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(5)'';
(5) in paragraph (5) (as so designated), by adding at the
end the following:
``(E) The contracting district from which the water is
coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a
written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after
the date of submission of the proposal. If the contracting
district or agency or the Secretary determines that the
proposal is incomplete, the district or agency or the
Secretary shall state with specificity what must be added to
or revised for the proposal to be complete.''; and
(6) in paragraph (6) (as so designated), by striking
``3405(a)(1)(A)-(C), (E), (G), (H), (I), (L), and (M) of this
title'' and inserting ``(A) through (C), (E), (G), (H), (I),
(L), and (M) of paragraph (4)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) is amended--
(1) in section 3407(c)(1) (106 Stat. 4726), by striking
``3405(a)(1)(C)'' and inserting ``3405(a)(4)(C)''; and
(2) in section 3408(i)(1) (106 Stat. 4729), by striking
``3405(a)(1) (A) and (J) of this title'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (A) and (J) of section 3405(a)(4)''.
SEC. 309. ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY CONSULTATION.
For adjustments to operating criteria other than under
section 308 of this Act or to take urgent actions to address
water supply shortages for the least amount of time or volume
of diversion necessary as determined by the Commissioner of
Reclamation, no mitigation measures shall be required during
any year that the Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or
at the request of the State of California, and until two
succeeding years following either of those events have been
completed where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or
greater, and any mitigation measures imposed must be based on
quantitative data and required only to the extent that such
data demonstrates actual harm to species.
[[Page H5261]]
SEC. 310. ADDITIONAL STORAGE AT NEW MELONES.
The Commissioner of Reclamation is directed to work with
local water and irrigation districts in the Stanislaus River
Basin to ascertain the water storage made available by the
Draft Plan of Operations in New Melones Reservoir (DRPO) for
water conservation programs, conjunctive use projects, water
transfers, rescheduled project water and other projects to
maximize water storage and ensure the beneficial use of the
water resources in the Stanislaus River Basin. All such
programs and projects shall be implemented according to all
applicable laws and regulations. The source of water for any
such storage program at New Melones Reservoir shall be made
available under a valid water right, consistent with the
State of California water transfer guidelines and any other
applicable State water law. The Commissioner shall inform the
Congress within 18 months setting forth the amount of storage
made available by the DRPO that has been put to use under
this program, including proposals received by the
Commissioner from interested parties for the purpose of this
section.
SEC. 311. REGARDING THE OPERATION OF FOLSOM RESERVOIR.
The Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the
Sacramento Water Forum, shall expedite evaluation, completion
and implementation of the Modified Lower American River Flow
Management Standard developed by the Water Forum in 2015 to
improve water supply reliability for Central Valley Project
American River water contractors and resource protection in
the lower American River during consecutive dry-years under
current and future demand and climate change conditions.
SEC. 312. APPLICANTS.
In the event that the Bureau of Reclamation or another
Federal agency initiates or reinitiates consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), with respect to
construction or operation of the Central Valley Project and
State Water Project, or any part thereof, the State Water
Project contractors and the Central Valley Project
contractors will be accorded all the rights and
responsibilities extended to applicants in the consultation
process.
SEC. 313. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
(a) California State Law Satisfied by Warm Water Fishery.--
(1) In general.--Sections 5930 through 5948 of the
California Fish and Game Code, and all applicable Federal
laws, including the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
Act (Public Law 111-11) and the Stipulation of Settlement
(Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers,
et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-88-1658-
LKK/GGH), shall be satisfied by the existence of a warm water
fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, but
upstream of Gravelly Ford.
(2) Definition of warm water fishery.--For the purposes of
this section, the term ``warm water fishery'' means a water
system that has an environment suitable for species of fish
other than salmon (including all subspecies) and trout
(including all subspecies).
(b) Repeal of the San Joaquin River Settlement.--As of the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the
Interior shall cease any action to implement the San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act (subtitle A of title X of
Public Law 111-11) and the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural
Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al.,
Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-88-1658 LKK/GGH).
SEC. 314. PROGRAM FOR WATER RESCHEDULING.
By December 31, 2015, the Secretary of the Interior shall
develop and implement a program, including rescheduling
guidelines for Shasta and Folsom Reservoirs, to allow
existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed, and refuge
service and municipal and industrial water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed and the
American River Watershed to reschedule water, provided for
under their Central Valley Project contracts, from one year
to the next; provided, that the program is consistent with
existing rescheduling guidelines as utilized by the Bureau of
Reclamation for rescheduling water for Central Valley Project
water service contractors that are located South of the
Delta.
TITLE IV--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
SEC. 401. STUDIES.
The Secretary of the Interior, through the Commissioner of
Reclamation, shall--
(1) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses
(i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law
108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
(2) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses
(i)(II) and (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law
108-361 and submit such studies to the appropriate committees
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than
November 30, 2016;
(3) complete the feasibility study described in section
103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and
submit such study to the appropriate Committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31,
2017;
(4) provide a progress report on the status of the
feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3)
to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until
December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include
timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact
statements, final environmental impact statements, and
Records of Decision;
(5) in conducting any feasibility study under this Act, 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, for the purposes of determining
feasibility the Secretary shall document, delineate, and
publish costs directly relating to the engineering and
construction of a water storage project separately from the
costs resulting from regulatory compliance or the
construction of auxiliary facilities necessary to achieve
regulatory compliance; and
(6) communicate, coordinate and cooperate with public water
agencies that contract with the United States for Central
Valley Project water and that are expected to participate in
the cost pools that will be created for the projects proposed
in the feasibility studies under this section.
SEC. 402. TEMPERANCE FLAT.
(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Temperance
Flat Reservoir Project on the Upper San Joaquin River.
(2) RMP.--The term ``RMP'' means the document titled
``Bakersfield Field Office, Record of Decision and Approved
Resource Management Plan,'' dated December 2014.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Applicability of RMP.--The RMP and findings related
thereto shall have no effect on or applicability to the
Secretary's determination of feasibility of, or on any
findings or environmental review documents related to--
(1) the Project; or
(2) actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to section
103(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of the Bay-Delta Authorization Act
(title I of Public Law 108-361).
(c) Duties of Secretary Upon Determination of
Feasibility.--If the Secretary finds the Project to be
feasible, the Secretary shall manage the land recommended in
the RMP for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) in a manner that does not impede any
environmental reviews, preconstruction, construction, or
other activities of the Project, regardless of whether or not
the Secretary submits any official recommendation to Congress
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
(d) Reserved Water Rights.--Effective December 22, 2014,
there shall be no Federal reserved water rights to any
segment of the San Joaquin River related to the Project as a
result of any designation made under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
SEC. 403. CALFED STORAGE ACCOUNTABILITY.
If the Secretary of the Interior fails to provide the
feasibility studies described in section 401 to the
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate by the times prescribed, the Secretary shall
notify each committee chair individually in person on the
status of each project once a month until the feasibility
study for that project is provided to Congress.
SEC. 404. WATER STORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Partnership and Agreements.--The Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, may partner or enter into an agreement on the
water storage projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the
Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act
(Public Law 108-361) (and Acts supplemental and amendatory to
the Act) with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant
to State law by irrigation districts and other local water
districts and local governments within the applicable
hydrologic region, to advance those projects.
(b) Authorization for Project.--If the Secretary determines
a project described in section 402(a)(1) and (2) is feasible,
the Secretary is authorized to carry out the project in a
manner that is substantially in accordance with the
recommended plan, and subject to the conditions described in
the feasibility study, provided that no Federal funding shall
be used to construct the project.
TITLE V--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
SEC. 501. OFFSET FOR STATE WATER PROJECT.
(a) Implementation Impacts.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall confer with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife in connection with the implementation of this Act on
potential impacts to any consistency determination for
operations of the State Water Project issued pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1.
(b) Additional Yield.--If, as a result of the application
of this Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife--
(1) revokes the consistency determinations pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 that are
applicable to the State Water Project;
(2) amends or issues one or more new consistency
determinations pursuant to California Fish and Game Code
section 2080.1 in a manner that directly or indirectly
results in reduced water supply to the State Water Project as
compared with the water supply available under the smelt
biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion; or
(3) requires take authorization under California Fish and
Game Code section 2081 for operation of the State Water
Project in a manner that directly or indirectly results in
reduced water supply to the State Water Project as compared
with the water supply available under the
[[Page H5262]]
smelt biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion,
and as a consequence of the Department's action, Central
Valley Project yield is greater than it would have been
absent the Department's actions, then that additional yield
shall be made available to the State Water Project for
delivery to State Water Project contractors to offset losses
resulting from the Department's action.
(c) Notification Related to Environmental Protections.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall immediately notify the
Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in
writing if the Secretary of the Interior determines that
implementation of the smelt biological opinion and the
salmonid biological opinion consistent with this Act reduces
environmental protections for any species covered by the
opinions.
SEC. 502. AREA OF ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior is directed,
in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to
California's water rights laws governing water rights
priorities and to honor water rights senior to those held by
the United States for operation of the Central Valley
Project, regardless of the source of priority, including any
appropriative water rights initiated prior to December 19,
1914, as well as water rights and other priorities perfected
or to be perfected pursuant to California Water Code Part 2
of Division 2. Article 1.7 (commencing with section 1215 of
chapter 1 of part 2 of division 2, sections 10505, 10505.5,
11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and sections 12200 to
12220, inclusive).
(b) Diversions.--Any action undertaken by the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to both
this Act and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that requires that diversions from
the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin River watersheds
upstream of the Delta be bypassed shall not be undertaken in
a manner that alters the water rights priorities established
by California law.
(c) Endangered Species Act.--Nothing in this title alters
the existing authorities provided to and obligations placed
upon the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended.
(d) Contracts.--With respect to individuals and entities
with water rights on the Sacramento River, the mandates of
this section may be met, in whole or in part, through a
contract with the Secretary of the Interior executed pursuant
to section 14 of Public Law 76-260; 53 Stat. 1187 (43 U.S.C.
389) that is in conformance with the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts renewed by the Secretary of the Interior
in 2005.
SEC. 503. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure
that, except as otherwise provided for in a water service or
repayment contract, actions taken in compliance with legal
obligations imposed pursuant to or as a result of this Act,
including such actions under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and other
applicable Federal and State laws, shall not directly or
indirectly--
(1) result in the involuntary reduction of water supply or
fiscal impacts to individuals or districts who receive water
from either the State Water Project or the United States
under water rights settlement contracts, exchange contracts,
water service contracts, repayment contracts, or water supply
contracts; or
(2) cause redirected adverse water supply or fiscal impacts
to those within the Sacramento River watershed, the San
Joaquin River watershed or the State Water Project service
area.
(b) Costs.--To the extent that costs are incurred solely
pursuant to or as a result of this Act and would not
otherwise have been incurred by any entity or public or local
agency or subdivision of the State of California, such costs
shall not be borne by any such entity, agency, or subdivision
of the State of California, unless such costs are incurred on
a voluntary basis.
(c) Rights and Obligations Not Modified or Amended.--
Nothing in this Act shall modify or amend the rights and
obligations of the parties to any existing--
(1) water service, repayment, settlement, purchase, or
exchange contract with the United States, including the
obligation to satisfy exchange contracts and settlement
contracts prior to the allocation of any other Central Valley
Project water; or
(2) State Water Project water supply or settlement contract
with the State.
SEC. 504. ALLOCATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONTRACTORS.
(a) Allocations.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Interior is directed, in the
operation of the Central Valley Project, to allocate water
provided for irrigation purposes to existing Central Valley
Project agricultural water service contractors within the
Sacramento River Watershed in compliance with the following:
(A) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Wet'' year.
(B) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in an ``Above Normal'' year.
(C) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Below Normal'' year that is preceded by an ``Above
Normal'' or a ``Wet'' year.
(D) Not less than 50 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Dry'' year that is preceded by a ``Below Normal,'' an
``Above Normal,'' or a ``Wet'' year.
(E) In all other years not identified herein, the
allocation percentage for existing Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors within the Sacramento
River Watershed shall not be less than twice the allocation
percentage to south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors, up to 100 percent;
provided, that nothing herein shall preclude an allocation to
existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed that is
greater than twice the allocation percentage to south-of-
Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors.
(2) Conditions.--The Secretary's actions under paragraph
(a) shall be subject to--
(A) the priority of individuals or entities with Sacramento
River water rights, including those with Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts, that have priority to the diversion and
use of Sacramento River water over water rights held by the
United States for operations of the Central Valley Project;
(B) the United States obligation to make a substitute
supply of water available to the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors; and
(C) the Secretary's obligation to make water available to
managed wetlands pursuant to section 3406(d) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575).
(b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to--
(1) modify any provision of a water service contract that
addresses municipal and industrial water shortage policies of
the Secretary;
(2) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to adopt
or modify municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
(3) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to
implement municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
or
(4) affect allocations to Central Valley Project municipal
and industrial contractors pursuant to such policies.
Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's implementation of
subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or affect, directly,
the operations of the Central Valley Project's American River
Division or any deliveries from that Division, its units or
facilities.
(c) No Effect on Allocations.--This section shall not--
(1) affect the allocation of water to Friant Division
contractors; or
(2) result in the involuntary reduction in contract water
allocations to individuals or entities with contracts to
receive water from the Friant Division.
(d) Program for Water Rescheduling.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall develop and implement a program, not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to
provide for the opportunity for existing Central Valley
Project agricultural water service contractors within the
Sacramento River Watershed to reschedule water, provided for
under their Central Valley Project water service contracts,
from one year to the next.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural
water service contractors within the Sacramento River
Watershed'' means water service contractors within the
Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the
Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in
effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that
provides water for irrigation.
(2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the
meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water
Year Type (40-30-30) Index.
SEC. 505. EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.
Nothing in this Act preempts or modifies any existing
obligation of the United States under Federal reclamation law
to operate the Central Valley Project in conformity with
State law, including established water rights priorities.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 601. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.
(a) In General.--The authorized service area of the Central
Valley Project authorized under the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706) shall
include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman City
Community Services District, California, as in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Long-Term Contract.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706) and
subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior, in
accordance with the Federal reclamation laws, shall enter
into a long-term contract with the Kettleman City Community
Services District, California, under terms and conditions
mutually agreeable to the parties, for the delivery of up to
900 acre-feet of Central Valley Project water for municipal
and industrial use.
(2) Limitation.--Central Valley Project water deliveries
authorized under the contract entered into under paragraph
(1) shall be limited to the minimal quantity necessary to
meet the immediate needs of the Kettleman City Community
Services District, California, in the event that local
supplies or State Water Project allocations are insufficient
to meet those needs.
(c) Permit.--The Secretary shall apply for a permit with
the State for a joint place of use for water deliveries
authorized under the contract entered into under subsection
(b) with respect to the expanded service area under
subsection (a), consistent with State law.
(d) Additional Costs.--If any additional infrastructure,
water treatment, or related costs are needed to implement
this section, those costs shall be the responsibility of the
non-Federal entity.
SEC. 602. OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR RESTORATION FUND.
(a) Plan; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat.
4726) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Plan on Expenditure of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Advisory
[[Page H5263]]
Board, shall submit to Congress a plan for the expenditure of
all of the funds deposited into the Restoration Fund during
the preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Contents.--The plan shall include an analysis of the
cost-effectiveness of each expenditure.
``(h) Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Restoration
Fund Advisory Board (referred to in this section as the
`Advisory Board'), which shall be composed of 11 members
appointed by the Secretary.
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint members to
the Advisory Board that represent the various Central Valley
Project stakeholders, of whom--
``(i) 4 members shall be agricultural users of the Central
Valley Project, including at least one agricultural user from
north-of-the-Delta and one agricultural user from south-of-
the-Delta;
``(ii) 2 members shall be municipal and industrial users of
the Central Valley Project, including one municipal and
industrial user from north-of-the-Delta and one municipal and
industrial user from south-of-the-Delta;
``(iii) 3 members shall be power contractors of the Central
Valley Project, including at least one power contractor from
north-of-the-Delta and from south-of-the-Delta;
``(iv) 1 member shall be a representative of a Federal
national wildlife refuge that contracts for Central Valley
Project water supplies with the Bureau of Reclamation; and
``(v) 1 member shall have expertise in the economic impacts
of the changes to water operations.
``(B) Observer.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
Commerce may each designate a representative to act as an
observer of the Advisory Board.
``(C) Chair.--The Secretary shall appoint 1 of the members
described in subparagraph (A) to serve as Chair of the
Advisory Board.
``(3) Terms.--The term of each member of the Advisory Board
shall be 4 years.
``(4) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Panel shall be made not later than--
``(A) the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act; or
``(B) in the case of a vacancy on the Panel described in
subsection (c)(2), the date that is 120 days after the date
on which the vacancy occurs.
``(5) Vacancies.--
``(A) In general.--A vacancy on the Panel shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made and
shall be subject to any conditions that applied with respect
to the original appointment.
``(B) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to fill
a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the
member replaced.
``(C) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member shall
not expire before the date on which the successor of the
member takes office.
``(6) Removal.--A member of the Panel may be removed from
office by the Secretary of the Interior.
``(7) Federal advisory committee act.--The Panel shall not
be subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
``(8) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are--
``(A) to meet not less frequently than semiannually to
develop and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding
priorities and spending levels on projects and programs
carried out under this title;
``(B) to ensure that any advice given or recommendation
made by the Advisory Board reflects the independent judgment
of the Advisory Board;
``(C) not later than December 31, 2015, and annually
thereafter, to submit to the Secretary and Congress the
recommendations under subparagraph (A); and
``(D) not later than December 31, 2015, and biennially
thereafter, to submit to Congress details of the progress
made in achieving the actions required under section 3406.
``(9) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate
agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and
services of any Federal agency.
``(10) Cooperation and assistance.--
``(A) Provision of information.--Upon request of the Panel
Chair for information or assistance to facilitate carrying
out this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall
promptly provide such information, unless otherwise
prohibited by law.
``(B) Space and assistance.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall provide the Panel with appropriate and adequate office
space, together with such equipment, office supplies, and
communications facilities and services as may be necessary
for the operation of the Panel, and shall provide necessary
maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and
facilities located therein.''.
SEC. 603. WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING.
(a) In General.--All Central Valley Project water, except
Central Valley Project water released pursuant to U.S.
Department of the Interior Record of Decision, Trinity River
Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report dated December 2000
used to implement an action undertaken for a fishery
beneficial purpose that was not imposed by terms and
conditions existing in licenses, permits, and other
agreements pertaining to the Central Valley Project under
applicable State or Federal law existing on October 30, 1992,
shall be credited to the quantity of Central Valley Project
yield dedicated and managed under this section; provided,
that nothing herein shall affect the Secretary of the
Interior's duty to comply with any otherwise lawful
requirement imposed on operations of the Central Valley
Project under any provision of Federal or State law.
(b) Reclamation Policies and Allocations.--Reclamation
policies and allocations shall not be based upon any premise
or assumption that Central Valley Project contract supplies
are supplemental or secondary to any other contractor source
of supply.
SEC. 604. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER REPLACEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 2016, the
Secretary of the Interior shall update and implement the plan
required by section 3408(j) of title XXXIV of Public Law 102-
575. The Secretary shall notify the Congress annually
describing the progress of implementing the plan required by
section 3408(j) of title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575.
(b) Potential Amendment.--If the plan required in
subsection (a) has not increased the Central Valley Project
yield by 800,000 acre-feet within 5 years after the enactment
of this Act, then section 3406 of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) is
amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (b)--
(A) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
``(C) If by March 15, 2021, and any year thereafter the
quantity of Central Valley Project water forecasted to be
made available to all water service or repayment contractors
of the Central Valley Project is below 50 percent of the
total quantity of water to be made available under said
contracts, the quantity of Central Valley Project yield
dedicated and managed for that year under this paragraph
shall be reduced by 25 percent.''.
SEC. 605. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.
After the date of the enactment of this title, and
regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially
propagated strains of a species in making any determination
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) that relates to any anadromous or pelagic fish species
that resides for all or a portion of its life in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or rivers tributary thereto.
SEC. 606. TRANSFER THE NEW MELONES UNIT, CENTRAL VALLEY
PROJECT TO INTERESTED PROVIDERS.
(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following terms apply:
(1) Interested local water and power providers.--The term
``interested local water and power providers'' includes the
Calaveras County Water District, Calaveras Public Power
Agency, Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District,
Oakdale Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District,
South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Tuolumne Utilities
District, Tuolumne Public Power Agency, and Union Public
Utilities District.
(2) New melones unit, central valley project.--The term
``New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project'' means all
Federal reclamation projects located within or diverting
water from or to the watershed of the Stanislaus and San
Joaquin rivers and their tributaries as authorized by the Act
of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 850), and all Acts amendatory or
supplemental thereto, including the Act of October 23, 1962
(76 Stat. 1173).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into negotiations with
interested local water and power providers for the transfer
ownership, control, and operation of the New Melones Unit,
Central Valley Project to interested local water and power
providers within the State of California.
(c) Transfer.--The Secretary shall transfer the New Melones
Unit, Central Valley Project in accordance with an agreement
reached pursuant to negotiations conducted under subsection
(b).
(d) Notification.--Not later than 360 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter,
the Secretary shall notify the appropriate committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate--
(1) if an agreement is reached pursuant to negotiations
conducted under subsection (b), the terms of that agreement;
(2) of the status of formal discussions with interested
local water and power providers for the transfer of
ownership, control, and operation of the New Melones Unit,
Central Valley Project to interested local water and power
providers;
(3) of all unresolved issues that are preventing execution
of an agreement for the transfer of ownership, control, and
operation of the New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project to
interested local water and power providers;
(4) on analysis and review of studies, reports,
discussions, hearing transcripts, negotiations, and other
information about past and present formal discussions that--
(A) have a serious impact on the progress of the formal
discussions;
(B) explain or provide information about the issues that
prevent progress or finalization of formal discussions; or
(C) are, in whole or in part, preventing execution of an
agreement for the transfer; and
(5) of any actions the Secretary recommends that the United
States should take to finalize an agreement for that
transfer.
SEC. 607. BASIN STUDIES.
(a) Authorized Studies.--The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to expand opportunities and expedite
completion of assessments under section 9503(b) of the SECURE
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 10363(b)), with non-
[[Page H5264]]
Federal partners, of individual sub-basins and watersheds
within major Reclamation river basins; and shall ensure
timely decision and expedited implementation of adaptation
and mitigation strategies developed through the special study
process.
(b) Funding.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal partners shall be
responsible for 100 percent of the cost of the special
studies.
(2) Contributed funds.--The Secretary may accept and use
contributions of funds from the non-Federal partners to carry
out activities under the special studies.
SEC. 608. OPERATIONS OF THE TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.
The Secretary of the Interior, in the operation of the
Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project, shall
not make releases from Lewiston Dam in excess of the volume
for each water-year type required by the U.S. Department of
the Interior Record of Decision, Trinity River Mainstem
Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report dated December 2000.
(1) A maximum of 369,000 acre-feet in a ``Critically Dry''
year.
(2) A maximum of 453,000 acre-feet in a ``Dry'' year.
(3) A maximum of 647,000 acre-feet in a ``Normal'' year.
(4) A maximum of 701,000 acre-feet in a ``Wet'' year.
(5) A maximum of 815,000 acre-feet in an ``Extremely Wet''
year.
SEC. 609. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.
Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife
purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central
Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2018, at the
lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in
accordance with this Act.''.
SEC. 610. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.
Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks
of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of
October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers
and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San
Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
(2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,'';
(3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) the term `reasonable flow' means water flows capable
of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive
uses of water and economic, environmental, and social
factors.''.
TITLE VII--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Water Supply Permitting
Coordination Act''.
SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of
Reclamation.
(3) Qualifying projects.--The term ``qualifying projects''
means new surface water storage projects in the States
covered under 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.) constructed on lands administered by
the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-of-way, lease,
or any private holding.
(4) Cooperating agencies.--The term ``cooperating agency''
means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review,
analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other
approval or decision required for a qualifying project under
applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency
subject to section 703(c).
SEC. 703. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING
AGENCIES.
(a) Establishment of Lead Agency.--The Bureau of
Reclamation is established as the lead agency for purposes of
coordinating all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements,
permits, licenses, or other approvals or decisions required
under Federal law to construct qualifying projects.
(b) Identification and Establishment of Cooperating
Agencies.--The Commissioner of the Bureau shall--
(1) identify, as early as practicable upon receipt of an
application for a qualifying project, any Federal agency that
may have jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion,
statement, permit, license, approval, or decision required
for a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and
regulations; and
(2) notify any such agency, within a reasonable timeframe,
that the agency has been designated as a cooperating agency
in regards to the qualifying project unless that agency
responds to the Bureau in writing, within a timeframe set
forth by the Bureau, notifying the Bureau that the agency--
(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
qualifying project;
(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the
qualifying project or any review, analysis, opinion,
statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision
associated therewith; or
(C) does not intend to submit comments on the qualifying
project or conduct any review of such a project or make any
decision with respect to such project in a manner other than
in cooperation with the Bureau.
(c) State Authority.--A State in which a qualifying project
is being considered may choose, consistent with State law--
(1) to participate as a cooperating agency; and
(2) to make subject to the processes of this title all
State agencies that--
(A) have jurisdiction over the qualifying project;
(B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or
opinion for the qualifying project; or
(C) are required to make a determination on issuing a
permit, license, or approval for the qualifying project.
SEC. 704. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) In General.--The principal responsibilities of the
Bureau under this title are to--
(1) serve as the point of contact for applicants, State
agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed
qualifying projects;
(2) coordinate preparation of unified environmental
documentation that will serve as the basis for all Federal
decisions necessary to authorize the use of Federal lands for
qualifying projects; and
(3) coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for
project development and construction of qualifying projects.
(b) Coordination Process.--The Bureau shall have the
following coordination responsibilities:
(1) Pre-application coordination.--Notify cooperating
agencies of proposed qualifying projects not later than 30
days after receipt of a proposal and facilitate a
preapplication meeting for prospective applicants, relevant
Federal and State agencies, and Indian tribes to--
(A) explain applicable processes, data requirements, and
applicant submissions necessary to complete the required
Federal agency reviews within the timeframe established; and
(B) establish the schedule for the qualifying project.
(2) Consultation with cooperating agencies.--Consult with
the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review
process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely
manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies.
(3) Schedule.--Work with the qualifying project applicant
and cooperating agencies to establish a project schedule. In
establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among
other factors--
(A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under
applicable laws and regulations;
(B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and
the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable;
(C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying
project;
(D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying
project; and
(E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources
that may be affected by the qualifying project.
(4) Environmental compliance.--Prepare a unified
environmental review document for each qualifying project
application, incorporating a single environmental record on
which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue
approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project
approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies
make necessary decisions, within their respective
authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with
the following timelines:
(A) Not later than one year after acceptance of a completed
project application when an environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact is determined to be the
appropriate level of review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(B) Not later than one year and 30 days after the close of
the public comment period for a draft environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact
statement is required under the same.
(5) Consolidated administrative record.--Maintain a
consolidated administrative record of the information
assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis
for agency decisions.
(6) Project data records.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with Federal law, ensure that all project data is
submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic
format, compile, and where authorized under existing law,
make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the
qualifying project applicant, and to the public.
(7) Project manager.--Appoint a project manager for each
qualifying project. The project manager shall have authority
to oversee the project and to facilitate the issuance of the
relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be
responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau
responsibilities set forth in this section and all
cooperating agency responsibilities under section 705.
SEC. 705. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) Adherence to Bureau Schedule.--Upon notification of an
application for a qualifying project, all cooperating
agencies shall submit to the Bureau a timeframe under which
the cooperating agency reasonably considers it will be able
to complete its authorizing responsibilities. The Bureau
shall use the timeframe submitted under this subsection to
establish the project schedule under section 704, and the
cooperating agencies shall adhere to the project schedule
established by the Bureau.
(b) Environmental Record.--Cooperating agencies shall
submit to the Bureau all environmental review material
produced or compiled in
[[Page H5265]]
the course of carrying out activities required under Federal
law consistent with the project schedule established by the
Bureau.
(c) Data Submission.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with Federal law, the cooperating agencies shall
submit all relevant project data to the Bureau in a generally
accessible electronic format subject to the project schedule
set forth by the Bureau.
SEC. 706. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in
accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.
553), may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-
Federal public entity to expedite the evaluation of a permit
of that entity related to a qualifying project.
(b) Effect on Permitting.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under
subsection (a) will not impact impartial decisionmaking with
respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.
(2) Evaluation of permits.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits
carried out using funds accepted under this section shall--
(A) be reviewed by the Regional Director of the Bureau, or
the Regional Director's designee, of the region in which the
qualifying project or activity is located; and
(B) use the same procedures for decisions that would
otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for
similar projects or activities not carried out using funds
authorized under this section.
(3) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary and the cooperating agencies receiving
funds under this section for qualifying projects shall ensure
that the use of the funds accepted under this section for
such projects shall not--
(A) impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the
issuance of permits, either substantively or procedurally; or
(B) diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or
regulatory authorities of such agencies.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted
under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the
evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that
all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized
under this section are made available to the public,
including on the Internet.
TITLE VIII--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation
Project Streamlining Act''.
SEC. 802. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Environmental impact statement.--The term
``environmental impact statement'' means the detailed
statement of environmental impacts of a project required to
be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(2) Environmental review process.--
(A) In general.--The term ``environmental review process''
means the process of preparing an environmental impact
statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion,
or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for a project study.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``environmental review process''
includes the process for and completion of any environmental
permit, approval, review, or study required for a project
study under any Federal law other than the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(3) Federal jurisdictional agency.--The term ``Federal
jurisdictional agency'' means a Federal agency with
jurisdiction delegated by law, regulation, order, or
otherwise over a review, analysis, opinion, statement,
permit, license, or other approval or decision required for a
project study under applicable Federal laws (including
regulations).
(4) Federal lead agency.--The term ``Federal lead agency''
means the Bureau of Reclamation.
(5) Project.--The term ``project'' means a surface water
project, a project under the purview of title XVI of Public
Law 102-575, or a rural water supply project investigated
under Public Law 109-451 to be carried out, funded or
operated in whole or in party by the Secretary pursuant to
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.).
(6) Project sponsor.--The term ``project sponsor'' means a
State, regional, or local authority or instrumentality or
other qualifying entity, such as a water conservation
district, irrigation district, water conservancy district,
joint powers authority, mutual water company, canal company,
rural water district or association, or any other entity that
has the capacity to contract with the United States under
Federal reclamation law.
(7) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a
feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to 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.).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(9) Surface water storage.--The term ``surface water
storage'' means any surface water reservoir or impoundment
that would be owned, funded or operated in whole or in part
by the Bureau of Reclamation or that would be integrated into
a larger system owned, operated or administered in whole or
in part by the Bureau of Reclamation.
SEC. 803. ACCELERATION OF STUDIES.
(a) In General.--To the extent practicable, a project study
initiated by the Secretary, after the date of enactment of
this Act, under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388),
and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto,
shall--
(1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report
not later than 3 years after the date of initiation;
(2) have a maximum Federal cost of $3,000,000; and
(3) ensure that personnel from the local project area,
region, and headquarters levels of the Bureau of Reclamation
concurrently conduct the review required under this section.
(b) Extension.--If the Secretary determines that a project
study described in subsection (a) will not be conducted in
accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary, not later than
30 days after the date of making the determination, shall--
(1) prepare an updated project study schedule and cost
estimate;
(2) notify the non-Federal project cost-sharing partner
that the project study has been delayed; and
(3) provide written notice to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the
reasons the requirements of subsection (a) are not
attainable.
(c) Exception.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsection (a), the Secretary may extend the timeline of a
project study by a period not to exceed 3 years, if the
Secretary determines that the project study is too complex to
comply with the requirements of subsection (a).
(2) Factors.--In making a determination that a study is too
complex to comply with the requirements of subsection (a),
the Secretary shall consider--
(A) the type, size, location, scope, and overall cost of
the project;
(B) whether the project will use any innovative design or
construction techniques;
(C) whether the project will require significant action by
other Federal, State, or local agencies;
(D) whether there is significant public dispute as to the
nature or effects of the project; and
(E) whether there is significant public dispute as to the
economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
(3) Notification.--Each time the Secretary makes a
determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall
provide written notice to the Committee on Natural Resources
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the results of that
determination, including an identification of the specific
one or more factors used in making the determination that the
project is complex.
(4) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not extend the
timeline for a project study for a period of more than 7
years, and any project study that is not completed before
that date shall no longer be authorized.
(d) Reviews.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
initiation of a project study described in subsection (a),
the Secretary shall--
(1) take all steps necessary to initiate the process for
completing federally mandated reviews that the Secretary is
required to complete as part of the study, including the
environmental review process under section 805;
(2) convene a meeting of all Federal, tribal, and State
agencies identified under section 805(d) that may--
(A) have jurisdiction over the project;
(B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review,
analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
(C) be required to make a determination on issuing a
permit, license, or other approval or decision for the
project study; and
(3) take all steps necessary to provide information that
will enable required reviews and analyses related to the
project to be conducted by other agencies in a thorough and
timely manner.
(e) Interim Report.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report
that describes--
(1) the status of the implementation of the planning
process under this section, including the number of
participating projects;
(2) a review of project delivery schedules, including a
description of any delays on those studies initiated prior to
the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary
to support efforts to expedite the project.
(f) Final Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report
that describes--
(1) the status of the implementation of this section,
including a description of each project study subject to the
requirements of this section;
(2) the amount of time taken to complete each project
study; and
(3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary
to support efforts to expedite the project study process,
including an analysis of whether the limitation established
by subsection (a)(2) needs to be adjusted to address the
impacts of inflation.
SEC. 804. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS.
The Secretary shall--
(1) expedite the completion of any ongoing project study
initiated before the date of enactment of this Act; and
[[Page H5266]]
(2) if the Secretary determines that the project is
justified in a completed report, proceed directly to
preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the
project in accordance with the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32
Stat. 388), and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary
thereto.
SEC. 805. PROJECT ACCELERATION.
(a) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--This section shall apply to--
(A) each project study that is initiated after the date of
enactment of this Act and for which an environmental impact
statement is prepared under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(B) the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary, to
other project studies initiated before the date of enactment
of this Act and for which an environmental review process
document is prepared under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(C) any project study for the development of a non-
federally owned and operated surface water storage project
for which the Secretary determines there is a demonstrable
Federal interest and the project--
(i) is located in a river basin where other Bureau of
Reclamation water projects are located;
(ii) will create additional water supplies that support
Bureau of Reclamation water projects; or
(iii) will become integrated into the operation of Bureau
of Reclamation water projects.
(2) Flexibility.--Any authority granted under this section
may be exercised, and any requirement established under this
section may be satisfied, for the conduct of an environmental
review process for a project study, a class of project
studies, or a program of project studies.
(3) List of project studies.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall annually prepare, and
make publicly available, a list of all project studies that
the Secretary has determined--
(i) meets the standards described in paragraph (1); and
(ii) does not have adequate funding to make substantial
progress toward the completion of the project study.
(B) Inclusions.--The Secretary shall include for each
project study on the list under subparagraph (A) a
description of the estimated amounts necessary to make
substantial progress on the project study.
(b) Project Review Process.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and implement
a coordinated environmental review process for the
development of project studies.
(2) Coordinated review.--The coordinated environmental
review process described in paragraph (1) shall require that
any review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or
other approval or decision issued or made by a Federal,
State, or local governmental agency or an Indian tribe for a
project study described in subsection (b) be conducted, to
the maximum extent practicable, concurrently with any other
applicable governmental agency or Indian tribe.
(3) Timing.--The coordinated environmental review process
under this subsection shall be completed not later than the
date on which the Secretary, in consultation and concurrence
with the agencies identified under section 805(d),
establishes with respect to the project study.
(c) Lead Agencies.--
(1) Joint lead agencies.--
(A) In general.--Subject to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and the requirements of section 1506.8 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations),
including the concurrence of the proposed joint lead agency,
a project sponsor may serve as the joint lead agency.
(B) Project sponsor as joint lead agency.--A project
sponsor that is a State or local governmental entity may--
(i) with the concurrence of the Secretary, serve as a joint
lead agency with the Federal lead agency for purposes of
preparing any environmental document under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
and
(ii) prepare any environmental review process document
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) required in support of any action or
approval by the Secretary if--
(I) the Secretary provides guidance in the preparation
process and independently evaluates that document;
(II) the project sponsor complies with all requirements
applicable to the Secretary under--
(aa) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(bb) any regulation implementing that Act; and
(cc) any other applicable Federal law; and
(III) the Secretary approves and adopts the document before
the Secretary takes any subsequent action or makes any
approval based on that document, regardless of whether the
action or approval of the Secretary results in Federal
funding.
(2) Duties.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(A) the project sponsor complies with all design and
mitigation commitments made jointly by the Secretary and the
project sponsor in any environmental document prepared by the
project sponsor in accordance with this subsection; and
(B) any environmental document prepared by the project
sponsor is appropriately supplemented to address any changes
to the project the Secretary determines are necessary.
(3) Adoption and use of documents.--Any environmental
document prepared in accordance with this subsection shall be
adopted and used by any Federal agency making any
determination related to the project study to the same extent
that the Federal agency could adopt or use a document
prepared by another Federal agency under--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) parts 1500 through 1508 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations).
(4) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With respect
to the environmental review process for any project study,
the Federal lead agency shall have authority and
responsibility--
(A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper and
within the authority of the Federal lead agency to facilitate
the expeditious resolution of the environmental review
process for the project study; and
(B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental
impact statement or other environmental review document for a
project study required to be completed under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is
completed in accordance with this section and applicable
Federal law.
(d) Participating and Cooperating Agencies.--
(1) Identification of jurisdictional agencies.--With
respect to carrying out the environmental review process for
a project study, the Secretary shall identify, as early as
practicable in the environmental review process, all Federal,
State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that
may--
(A) have jurisdiction over the project;
(B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review,
analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
(C) be required to make a determination on issuing a
permit, license, or other approval or decision for the
project study.
(2) State authority.--If the environmental review process
is being implemented by the Secretary for a project study
within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with
State law, may choose to participate in the process and to
make subject to the process all State agencies that--
(A) have jurisdiction over the project;
(B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis,
opinion, or statement for the project study; or
(C) are required to make a determination on issuing a
permit, license, or other approval or decision for the
project study.
(3) Invitation.--
(A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall invite, as
early as practicable in the environmental review process, any
agency identified under paragraph (1) to become a
participating or cooperating agency, as applicable, in the
environmental review process for the project study.
(B) Deadline.--An invitation to participate issued under
subparagraph (A) shall set a deadline by which a response to
the invitation shall be submitted, which may be extended by
the Federal lead agency for good cause.
(4) Procedures.--Section 1501.6 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
the Bureau of Reclamation Project Streamlining Act) shall
govern the identification and the participation of a
cooperating agency.
(5) Federal cooperating agencies.--Any Federal agency that
is invited by the Federal lead agency to participate in the
environmental review process for a project study shall be
designated as a cooperating agency by the Federal lead agency
unless the invited agency informs the Federal lead agency, in
writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the
invited agency--
(A)(i) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
project;
(ii) has no expertise or information relevant to the
project; or
(iii) does not have adequate funds to participate in the
project; and
(B) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
(6) Administration.--A participating or cooperating agency
shall comply with this section and any schedule established
under this section.
(7) Effect of designation.--Designation as a participating
or cooperating agency under this subsection shall not imply
that the participating or cooperating agency--
(A) supports a proposed project; or
(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with
respect to evaluation of, the project.
(8) Concurrent reviews.--Each participating or cooperating
agency shall--
(A) carry out the obligations of that agency under other
applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the
required environmental review process, unless doing so would
prevent the participating or cooperating agency from
conducting needed analysis or otherwise carrying out those
obligations; and
(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and
procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure
completion of the environmental review process in a timely,
coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.
(e) Non-Federal Projects Integrated Into Reclamation
Systems.--The Federal lead agency shall serve in that
capacity for the entirety of all non-Federal projects that
will be integrated into a larger system owned, operated or
administered in whole or in part by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
(f) Non-Federal Project.--If the Secretary determines that
a project can be expedited by a non-Federal sponsor and that
there is a demonstrable Federal interest in expediting that
project, the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to advance such a project as a non-Federal project,
including, but not limited to, entering into agreements with
the non-Federal sponsor of such project to support the
planning, design and permitting of such project as a non-
Federal project.
(g) Programmatic Compliance.--
[[Page H5267]]
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue guidance
regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the
environmental review process that--
(A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues;
(B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at each
level of review;
(C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with
participating and cooperating agencies, including the
creation of a list of all data that are needed to carry out
an environmental review process; and
(D) complies with--
(i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(ii) all other applicable laws.
(2) Requirements.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
(A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that
paragraph, consult with relevant Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies, Indian tribes, and the public on the
appropriate use and scope of the programmatic approaches;
(B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among
relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, and
Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, especially
with respect to including reviews with a broad geographical
scope;
(C) ensure that the programmatic reviews--
(i) promote transparency, including of the analyses and
data used in the environmental review process, the treatment
of any deferred issues raised by Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies, Indian tribes, or the public, and the
temporal and special scales to be used to analyze those
issues;
(ii) use accurate and timely information in the
environmental review process, including--
(I) criteria for determining the general duration of the
usefulness of the review; and
(II) the timeline for updating any out-of-date review;
(iii) describe--
(I) the relationship between programmatic analysis and
future tiered analysis; and
(II) the role of the public in the creation of future
tiered analysis; and
(iv) are available to other relevant Federal, State, and
local governmental agencies, Indian tribes, and the public;
(D) allow not fewer than 60 days of public notice and
comment on any proposed guidance; and
(E) address any comments received under subparagraph (D).
(h) Coordinated Reviews.--
(1) Coordination plan.--
(A) Establishment.--The Federal lead agency shall, after
consultation with and with the concurrence of each
participating and cooperating agency and the project sponsor
or joint lead agency, as applicable, establish a plan for
coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment
on, the environmental review process for a project study or a
category of project studies.
(B) Schedule.--
(i) In general.--As soon as practicable but not later than
45 days after the close of the public comment period on a
draft environmental impact statement, the Federal lead
agency, after consultation with and the concurrence of each
participating and cooperating agency and the project sponsor
or joint lead agency, as applicable, shall establish, as part
of the coordination plan established in subparagraph (A), a
schedule for completion of the environmental review process
for the project study.
(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing a
schedule, the Secretary shall consider factors such as--
(I) the responsibilities of participating and cooperating
agencies under applicable laws;
(II) the resources available to the project sponsor, joint
lead agency, and other relevant Federal and State agencies,
as applicable;
(III) the overall size and complexity of the project;
(IV) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; and
(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historical resources
that could be affected by the project.
(iii) Modifications.--The Secretary may--
(I) lengthen a schedule established under clause (i) for
good cause; and
(II) shorten a schedule only with concurrence of the
affected participating and cooperating agencies and the
project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable.
(iv) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule established under
clause (i) shall be--
(I) provided to each participating and cooperating agency
and the project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable;
and
(II) made available to the public.
(2) Comment deadlines.--The Federal lead agency shall
establish the following deadlines for comment during the
environmental review process for a project study:
(A) Draft environmental impact statements.--For comments by
Federal and State agencies and the public on a draft
environmental impact statement, a period of not more than 60
days after publication in the Federal Register of notice of
the date of public availability of the draft environmental
impact statement, unless--
(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the
Federal lead agency, the project sponsor or joint lead
agency, as applicable, and all participating and cooperating
agencies; or
(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency
for good cause.
(B) Other environmental review processes.--For all other
comment periods established by the Federal lead agency for
agency or public comments in the environmental review
process, a period of not more than 30 days after the date on
which the materials on which comment is requested are made
available, unless--
(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the
Federal lead agency, the project sponsor, or joint lead
agency, as applicable, and all participating and cooperating
agencies; or
(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency
for good cause.
(3) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--In any case
in which a decision under any Federal law relating to a
project study, including the issuance or denial of a permit
or license, is required to be made by the date described in
subsection (i)(5)(B), the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate--
(A) as soon as practicable after the 180-day period
described in subsection (i)(5)(B), an initial notice of the
failure of the Federal agency to make the decision; and
(B) every 60 days thereafter until such date as all
decisions of the Federal agency relating to the project study
have been made by the Federal agency, an additional notice
that describes the number of decisions of the Federal agency
that remain outstanding as of the date of the additional
notice.
(4) Involvement of the public.--Nothing in this subsection
reduces any time period provided for public comment in the
environmental review process under applicable Federal law
(including regulations).
(5) Transparency reporting.--
(A) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
establish and maintain an electronic database and, in
coordination with other Federal and State agencies, issue
reporting requirements to make publicly available the status
and progress with respect to compliance with applicable
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and any other Federal, State, or
local approval or action required for a project study for
which this section is applicable.
(B) Project study transparency.--Consistent with the
requirements established under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall make publicly available the status and
progress of any Federal, State, or local decision, action, or
approval required under applicable laws for each project
study for which this section is applicable.
(i) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
(1) Cooperation.--The Federal lead agency, the cooperating
agencies, and any participating agencies shall work
cooperatively in accordance with this section to identify and
resolve issues that could delay completion of the
environmental review process or result in the denial of any
approval required for the project study under applicable
laws.
(2) Federal lead agency responsibilities.--
(A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall make
information available to the cooperating agencies and
participating agencies as early as practicable in the
environmental review process regarding the environmental and
socioeconomic resources located within the project area and
the general locations of the alternatives under
consideration.
(B) Data sources.--The information under subparagraph (A)
may be based on existing data sources, including geographic
information systems mapping.
(3) Cooperating and participating agency
responsibilities.--Based on information received from the
Federal lead agency, cooperating and participating agencies
shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues of
concern regarding the potential environmental or
socioeconomic impacts of the project, including any issues
that could substantially delay or prevent an agency from
granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the
project study.
(4) Accelerated issue resolution and elevation.--
(A) In general.--On the request of a participating or
cooperating agency or project sponsor, the Secretary shall
convene an issue resolution meeting with the relevant
participating and cooperating agencies and the project
sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, to resolve
issues that may--
(i) delay completion of the environmental review process;
or
(ii) result in denial of any approval required for the
project study under applicable laws.
(B) Meeting date.--A meeting requested under this paragraph
shall be held not later than 21 days after the date on which
the Secretary receives the request for the meeting, unless
the Secretary determines that there is good cause to extend
that deadline.
(C) Notification.--On receipt of a request for a meeting
under this paragraph, the Secretary shall notify all relevant
participating and cooperating agencies of the request,
including the issue to be resolved and the date for the
meeting.
(D) Elevation of issue resolution.--If a resolution cannot
be achieved within the 30-day period beginning on the date of
a meeting under this paragraph and a determination is made by
the Secretary that all information necessary to resolve the
issue has been obtained, the Secretary shall forward the
dispute to the heads of the relevant agencies for resolution.
(E) Convention by secretary.--The Secretary may convene an
issue resolution meeting under this paragraph at any time, at
the discretion of the Secretary, regardless of whether a
meeting is requested under subparagraph (A).
(5) Financial penalty provisions.--
(A) In general.--A Federal jurisdictional agency shall
complete any required approval or decision for the
environmental review process on an expeditious basis using
the shortest existing applicable process.
(B) Failure to decide.--
[[Page H5268]]
(i) In general.--
(I) Transfer of funds.--If a Federal jurisdictional agency
fails to render a decision required under any Federal law
relating to a project study that requires the preparation of
an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment, including the issuance or denial of a permit,
license, statement, opinion, or other approval by the date
described in clause (ii), the amount of funds made available
to support the office of the head of the Federal
jurisdictional agency shall be reduced by an amount of
funding equal to the amount specified in item (aa) or (bb) of
subclause (II), and those funds shall be made available to
the division of the Federal jurisdictional agency charged
with rendering the decision by not later than 1 day after the
applicable date under clause (ii), and once each week
thereafter until a final decision is rendered, subject to
subparagraph (C).
(II) Amount to be transferred.--The amount referred to in
subclause (I) is--
(aa) $20,000 for any project study requiring the
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement; or
(bb) $10,000 for any project study requiring any type of
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) other than an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
(ii) Description of date.--The date referred to in clause
(i) is the later of--
(I) the date that is 180 days after the date on which an
application for the permit, license, or approval is complete;
and
(II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which the
Federal lead agency issues a decision on the project under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.).
(C) Limitations.--
(i) In general.--No transfer of funds under subparagraph
(B) relating to an individual project study shall exceed, in
any fiscal year, an amount equal to 1 percent of the funds
made available for the applicable agency office.
(ii) Failure to decide.--The total amount transferred in a
fiscal year as a result of a failure by an agency to make a
decision by an applicable deadline shall not exceed an amount
equal to 5 percent of the funds made available for the
applicable agency office for that fiscal year.
(iii) Aggregate.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for each fiscal year, the aggregate amount of financial
penalties assessed against each applicable agency office
under this Act and any other Federal law as a result of a
failure of the agency to make a decision by an applicable
deadline for environmental review, including the total amount
transferred under this paragraph, shall not exceed an amount
equal to 9.5 percent of the funds made available for the
agency office for that fiscal year.
(D) Notification of transfers.--Not later than 10 days
after the last date in a fiscal year on which funds of the
Federal jurisdictional agency may be transferred under
subparagraph (B)(5) with respect to an individual decision,
the agency shall submit to the appropriate committees of the
House of Representatives and the Senate written notification
that includes a description of--
(i) the decision;
(ii) the project study involved;
(iii) the amount of each transfer under subparagraph (B) in
that fiscal year relating to the decision;
(iv) the total amount of all transfers under subparagraph
(B) in that fiscal year relating to the decision; and
(v) the total amount of all transfers of the agency under
subparagraph (B) in that fiscal year.
(E) No fault of agency.--
(i) In general.--A transfer of funds under this paragraph
shall not be made if the applicable agency described in
subparagraph (A) notifies, with a supporting explanation, the
Federal lead agency, cooperating agencies, and project
sponsor, as applicable, that--
(I) the agency has not received necessary information or
approvals from another entity in a manner that affects the
ability of the agency to meet any requirements under Federal,
State, or local law;
(II) significant new information, including from public
comments, or circumstances, including a major modification to
an aspect of the project, requires additional analysis for
the agency to make a decision on the project application; or
(III) the agency lacks the financial resources to complete
the review under the scheduled timeframe, including a
description of the number of full-time employees required to
complete the review, the amount of funding required to
complete the review, and a justification as to why not enough
funding is available to complete the review by the deadline.
(ii) Lack of financial resources.--If the agency provides
notice under clause (i)(III), the Inspector General of the
agency shall--
(I) conduct a financial audit to review the notice; and
(II) not later than 90 days after the date on which the
review described in subclause (I) is completed, submit to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate the results of the audit conducted
under subclause (I).
(F) Limitation.--The Federal agency from which funds are
transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall not reprogram
funds to the office of the head of the agency, or equivalent
office, to reimburse that office for the loss of the funds.
(G) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph affects
or limits the application of, or obligation to comply with,
any Federal, State, local, or tribal law.
(j) Memorandum of Agreements for Early Coordination.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) the Secretary and other Federal agencies with relevant
jurisdiction in the environmental review process should
cooperate with each other, State and local agencies, and
Indian tribes on environmental review and Bureau of
Reclamation project delivery activities at the earliest
practicable time to avoid delays and duplication of effort
later in the process, prevent potential conflicts, and ensure
that planning and project development decisions reflect
environmental values; and
(B) the cooperation referred to in subparagraph (A) should
include the development of policies and the designation of
staff that advise planning agencies and project sponsors of
studies or other information foreseeably required for later
Federal action and early consultation with appropriate State
and local agencies and Indian tribes.
(2) Technical assistance.--If requested at any time by a
State or project sponsor, the Secretary and other Federal
agencies with relevant jurisdiction in the environmental
review process, shall, to the maximum extent practicable and
appropriate, as determined by the agencies, provide technical
assistance to the State or project sponsor in carrying out
early coordination activities.
(3) Memorandum of agency agreement.--If requested at any
time by a State or project sponsor, the Federal lead agency,
in consultation with other Federal agencies with relevant
jurisdiction in the environmental review process, may
establish memoranda of agreement with the project sponsor,
Indian tribes, State and local governments, and other
appropriate entities to carry out the early coordination
activities, including providing technical assistance in
identifying potential impacts and mitigation issues in an
integrated fashion.
(k) Limitations.--Nothing in this section preempts or
interferes with--
(1) any obligation to comply with the provisions of any
Federal law, including--
(A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) any other Federal environmental law;
(2) the reviewability of any final Federal agency action in
a court of the United States or in the court of any State;
(3) any requirement for seeking, considering, or responding
to public comment; or
(4) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, duty, or
authority that a Federal, State, or local governmental
agency, Indian tribe, or project sponsor has with respect to
carrying out a project or any other provision of law
applicable to projects.
(l) Timing of Claims.--
(1) Timing.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial
review of a permit, license, or other approval issued by a
Federal agency for a project study shall be barred unless the
claim is filed not later than 3 years after publication of a
notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit,
license, or other approval is final pursuant to the law under
which the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is
specified in the Federal law that allows judicial review.
(B) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection creates a
right to judicial review or places any limit on filing a
claim that a person has violated the terms of a permit,
license, or other approval.
(2) New information.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall consider new
information received after the close of a comment period if
the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental
environmental impact statement under title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (including successor regulations).
(B) Separate action.--The preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement or other environmental
document, if required under this section, shall be considered
a separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a
claim for judicial review of the action shall be 3 years
after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the action relating to such supplemental
environmental impact statement or other environmental
document.
(m) Categorical Exclusions.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) survey the use by the Bureau of Reclamation of
categorical exclusions in projects since 2005;
(B) publish a review of the survey that includes a
description of--
(i) the types of actions that were categorically excluded
or could be the basis for developing a new categorical
exclusion; and
(ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary for
new categorical exclusions; and
(C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and
project sponsors for new categorical exclusions.
(2) New categorical exclusions.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, if the Secretary has
identified a category of activities that merit establishing a
categorical exclusion that did not exist on the day before
the date of enactment this Act based on the review under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking to propose that new categorical
exclusion, to the extent that the categorical exclusion meets
the criteria for a categorical exclusion under section 1508.4
of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor
regulation).
(n) Review of Project Acceleration Reforms.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall--
[[Page H5269]]
(A) assess the reforms carried out under this section; and
(B) not later than 5 years and not later than 10 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report that describes the results
of the assessment.
(2) Contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall
include an evaluation of impacts of the reforms carried out
under this section on--
(A) project delivery;
(B) compliance with environmental laws; and
(C) the environmental impact of projects.
(o) Performance Measurement.--The Secretary shall establish
a program to measure and report on progress made toward
improving and expediting the planning and environmental
review process.
(p) Categorical Exclusions in Emergencies.--For the repair,
reconstruction, or rehabilitation of a Bureau of Reclamation
surface water storage project that is in operation or under
construction when damaged by an event or incident that
results in a declaration by the President of a major disaster
or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.),
the Secretary shall treat such repair, reconstruction, or
rehabilitation activity as a class of action categorically
excluded from the requirements relating to environmental
assessments or environmental impact statements under section
1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor
regulations), if the repair or reconstruction activity is--
(1) in the same location with the same capacity,
dimensions, and design as the original Bureau of Reclamation
surface water storage project as before the declaration
described in this section; and
(2) commenced within a 2-year period beginning on the date
of a declaration described in this subsection.
SEC. 806. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than February 1 of each year,
the Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate an
annual report, to be entitled ``Report to Congress on Future
Water Project Development'', that identifies the following:
(1) Project reports.--Each project report that meets the
criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A).
(2) Proposed project studies.--Any proposed project study
submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest pursuant
to subsection (b) that meets the criteria established in
subsection (c)(1)(A).
(3) Proposed modifications.--Any proposed modification to
an authorized water project or project study that meets the
criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A) that--
(A) is submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest
pursuant to subsection (b); or
(B) is identified by the Secretary for authorization.
(4) Expedited completion of report and determinations.--Any
project study that was expedited and any Secretarial
determinations under section 804.
(b) Requests for Proposals.--
(1) Publication.--Not later than May 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice
requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed
project studies and proposed modifications to authorized
projects and project studies to be included in the annual
report.
(2) Deadline for requests.--The Secretary shall include in
each notice required by this subsection a requirement that
non-Federal interests submit to the Secretary any proposals
described in paragraph (1) by not later than 120 days after
the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register
in order for the proposals to be considered for inclusion in
the annual report.
(3) Notification.--On the date of publication of each
notice required by this subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) make the notice publicly available, including on the
Internet; and
(B) provide written notification of the publication to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate.
(c) Contents.--
(1) Project reports, proposed project studies, and proposed
modifications.--
(A) Criteria for inclusion in report.--The Secretary shall
include in the annual report only those project reports,
proposed project studies, and proposed modifications to
authorized projects and project studies that--
(i) are related to the missions and authorities of the
Bureau of Reclamation;
(ii) require specific congressional authorization,
including by an Act of Congress;
(iii) have not been congressionally authorized;
(iv) have not been included in any previous annual report;
and
(v) if authorized, could be carried out by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
(B) Description of benefits.--
(i) Description.--The Secretary shall describe in the
annual report, to the extent applicable and practicable, for
each proposed project study and proposed modification to an
authorized water resources development project or project
study included in the annual report, the benefits, as
described in clause (ii), of each such study or proposed
modification.
(ii) Benefits.--The benefits (or expected benefits, in the
case of a proposed project study) described in this clause
are benefits to--
(I) the protection of human life and property;
(II) improvement to domestic irrigated water and power
supplies;
(III) the national economy;
(IV) the environment; or
(V) the national security interests of the United States.
(C) Identification of other factors.--The Secretary shall
identify in the annual report, to the extent practicable--
(i) for each proposed project study included in the annual
report, the non-Federal interest that submitted the proposed
project study pursuant to subsection (b); and
(ii) for each proposed project study and proposed
modification to a project or project study included in the
annual report, whether the non-Federal interest has
demonstrated--
(I) that local support exists for the proposed project
study or proposed modification to an authorized project or
project study (including the surface water storage
development project that is the subject of the proposed
feasibility study or the proposed modification to an
authorized project study); and
(II) the financial ability to provide the required non-
Federal cost share.
(2) Transparency.--The Secretary shall include in the
annual report, for each project report, proposed project
study, and proposed modification to a project or project
study included under paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) the name of the associated non-Federal interest,
including the name of any non-Federal interest that has
contributed, or is expected to contribute, a non-Federal
share of the cost of--
(i) the project report;
(ii) the proposed project study;
(iii) the authorized project study for which the
modification is proposed; or
(iv) construction of--
(I) the project that is the subject of--
(aa) the water report;
(bb) the proposed project study; or
(cc) the authorized project study for which a modification
is proposed; or
(II) the proposed modification to a project;
(B) a letter or statement of support for the water report,
proposed project study, or proposed modification to a project
or project study from each associated non-Federal interest;
(C) the purpose of the feasibility report, proposed
feasibility study, or proposed modification to a project or
project study;
(D) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the Federal,
non-Federal, and total costs of--
(i) the proposed modification to an authorized project
study; and
(ii) construction of--
(I) the project that is the subject of--
(aa) the project report; or
(bb) the authorized project study for which a modification
is proposed, with respect to the change in costs resulting
from such modification; or
(II) the proposed modification to an authorized project;
and
(E) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the monetary
and nonmonetary benefits of--
(i) the project that is the subject of--
(I) the project report; or
(II) the authorized project study for which a modification
is proposed, with respect to the benefits of such
modification; or
(ii) the proposed modification to an authorized project.
(3) Certification.--The Secretary shall include in the
annual report a certification stating that each feasibility
report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification
to a project or project study included in the annual report
meets the criteria established in paragraph (1)(A).
(4) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include in the annual
report an appendix listing the proposals submitted under
subsection (b) that were not included in the annual report
under paragraph (1)(A) and a description of why the Secretary
determined that those proposals did not meet the criteria for
inclusion under such paragraph.
(d) Special Rule for Initial Annual Report.--
Notwithstanding any other deadlines required by this section,
the Secretary shall--
(1) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, publish in the Federal Register a notice required
by subsection (b)(1); and
(2) include in such notice a requirement that non-Federal
interests submit to the Secretary any proposals described in
subsection (b)(1) by not later than 120 days after the date
of publication of such notice in the Federal Register in
order for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in
the first annual report developed by the Secretary under this
section.
(e) Publication.--Upon submission of an annual report to
Congress, the Secretary shall make the annual report publicly
available, including through publication on the Internet.
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``project
report'' means a final feasibility report developed under the
Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and all Acts
amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.
TITLE IX--ACCELERATED REVENUE, REPAYMENT, AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE
ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Accelerated Revenue,
Repayment, and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 902. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND CONTRACTORS OF FEDERALLY
DEVELOPED WATER SUPPLIES.
(a) Conversion and Prepayment of Contracts.--
(1) Conversion.--Upon request of the contractor, the
Secretary of the Interior shall convert any water service
contract in effect on the date of enactment of this Act and
between the United States and a water users' association to
[[Page H5270]]
allow for prepayment of the repayment contract pursuant to
paragraph (2) under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
The manner of conversion under this paragraph shall be as
follows:
(A) Water service contracts that were entered into under
section 9(e) of the Act of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to
be converted under this section shall be converted to
repayment contracts under section 9(d) of that Act (53 Stat.
1195).
(B) Water service contracts that were entered under
subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of August 4, 1939
(53 Stat. 1194), to be converted under this section shall be
converted to a contract under subsection (c)(1) of section 9
of that Act (53 Stat. 1195).
(2) Prepayment.--All repayment contracts under section 9(d)
of that Act (53 Stat. 1195) in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act at the request of the contractor, and
all contracts converted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall--
(A) provide for the repayment, either in lump sum or by
accelerated prepayment, of the remaining construction costs
identified in water project specific irrigation rate
repayment schedules, as adjusted to reflect payment not
reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for
ultimate return by the contractor, or if made in
approximately equal installments, no later than 3 years after
the effective date of the repayment contract, such amount to
be discounted by \1/2\ the Treasury rate. An estimate of the
remaining construction costs, as adjusted, shall be provided
by the Secretary to the contractor no later than 90 days
following receipt of request of the contractor;
(B) require that construction costs or other capitalized
costs incurred after the effective date of the contract or
not reflected in the rate schedule referenced in subparagraph
(A), and properly assignable to such contractor shall be
repaid in not more than 5 years after notification of the
allocation if such amount is a result of a collective annual
allocation of capital costs to the contractors exercising
contract conversation under this subsection of less than
$5,000,000. If such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such
cost shall be repaid as provided by applicable reclamation
law;
(C) provide that power revenues will not be available to
aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to
irrigation under the contract; and
(D) continue so long as the contractor pays applicable
charges, consistent with section 9(d) of the Act of August 4,
1939 (53 Stat. 1195), and applicable law.
(3) Contract requirements.--The following shall apply with
regard to all repayment contracts under subsection (c)(1) of
section 9 of that Act (53 Stat. 1195) in effect on the date
of enactment of this Act at the request of the contractor,
and all contracts converted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B):
(A) Provide for the repayment in lump sum of the remaining
construction costs identified in water project specific
municipal and industrial rate repayment schedules, as
adjusted to reflect payments not reflected in such schedule,
and properly assignable for ultimate return by the
contractor. An estimate of the remaining construction costs,
as adjusted, shall be provided by the Secretary to the
contractor no later than 90 days after receipt of request of
contractor.
(B) The contract shall require that construction costs or
other capitalized costs incurred after the effective date of
the contract or not reflected in the rate schedule referenced
in subparagraph (A), and properly assignable to such
contractor, shall be repaid in not more than 5 years after
notification of the allocation if such amount is a result of
a collective annual allocation of capital costs to the
contractors exercising contract conversation under this
subsection of less than $5,000,000. If such amount is
$5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be repaid as provided
by applicable reclamation law.
(C) Continue so long as the contractor pays applicable
charges, consistent with section 9(c)(1) of the Act of August
4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1195), and applicable law.
(4) Conditions.--All contracts entered into pursuant to
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall--
(A) not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment
financing used by the water users' association;
(B) conform to any other agreements, such as applicable
settlement agreements and new constructed appurtenant
facilities; and
(C) not modify other water service, repayment, exchange and
transfer contractual rights between the water users'
association, and the Bureau of Reclamation, or any rights,
obligations, or relationships of the water users' association
and their landowners as provided under State law.
(b) Accounting.--The amounts paid pursuant to subsection
(a) shall be subject to adjustment following a final cost
allocation by the Secretary of the Interior. In the event
that the final cost allocation indicates that the costs
properly assignable to the contractor are greater than what
has been paid by the contractor, the contractor shall be
obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The term of
such additional repayment contract shall be not less than one
year and not more than 10 years, however, mutually agreeable
provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such amount may
be developed by the parties. In the event that the final cost
allocation indicates that the costs properly assignable to
the contractor are less than what the contractor has paid,
the Secretary shall credit such overpayment as an offset
against any outstanding or future obligation of the
contractor.
(c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Effect of existing law.--Upon a contractor's compliance
with and discharge of the obligation of repayment of the
construction costs pursuant to a contract entered into
pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A), subsections (a) and (b) of
section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat.
1269) shall apply to affected lands.
(2) Effect of other obligations.--The obligation of a
contractor to repay construction costs or other capitalized
costs described in subsection (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B), or (b)
shall not affect a contractor's status as having repaid all
of the construction costs assignable to the contractor or the
applicability of subsections (a) and (b) of section 213 of
the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1269) once the
amount required to be paid by the contractor under the
repayment contract entered into pursuant to subsection
(a)(2)(A) have been paid.
(d) Effect on Existing Law Not Altered.--Implementation of
the provisions of this title shall not alter--
(1) the repayment obligation of any water service or
repayment contractor receiving water from the same water
project, or shift any costs that would otherwise have been
properly assignable to the water users' association
identified in subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) absent
this section, including operation and maintenance costs,
construction costs, or other capitalized costs incurred after
the date of the enactment of this Act, or to other
contractors; and
(2) specific requirements for the disposition of amounts
received as repayments by the Secretary under 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.).
(e) Surface Water Storage Enhancement Program.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d)(2),
three years following the date of enactment of this Act, 50
percent of receipts generated from prepayment of contracts
under this section beyond amounts necessary to cover the
amount of receipts forgone from scheduled payments under
current law for the 10-year period following the date of
enactment of this Act shall be directed to the Reclamation
Surface Water Storage Account under paragraph (2).
(2) Surface storage account.--The Secretary shall allocate
amounts collected under paragraph (1) into the ``Reclamation
Surface Storage Account'' to fund the construction of surface
water storage. The Secretary may also enter into cooperative
agreements with water users' associations for the
construction of surface water storage and amounts within the
Surface Storage Account may be used to fund such
construction. Surface water storage projects that are
otherwise not federally authorized shall not be considered
Federal facilities as a result of any amounts allocated from
the Surface Storage Account for part or all of such
facilities.
(3) Repayment.--Amounts used for surface water storage
construction from the Account shall be fully reimbursed to
the Account consistent with the requirements under Federal
reclamation law (the 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.) except that all funds
reimbursed shall be deposited in the Account established
under paragraph (2).
(4) Availability of amounts.--Amounts deposited in the
Account under this subsection shall--
(A) be made available in accordance with this section,
subject to appropriation; and
(B) be in addition to amounts appropriated for such
purposes under any other provision of law.
(5) Purposes of surface water storage.--Construction of
surface water storage under this section shall be made for
the following purposes:
(A) Increased municipal and industrial water supply.
(B) Agricultural floodwater, erosion, and sedimentation
reduction.
(C) Agricultural drainage improvements.
(D) Agricultural irrigation.
(E) Increased recreation opportunities.
(F) Reduced adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from water
storage or diversion projects within watersheds associated
with water storage projects funded under this section.
(G) Any other purposes consistent with reclamation laws or
other Federal law.
(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Reclamation
Surface Water Storage Account established under subsection
(e)(2).
(2) Construction.--The term ``construction'' means the
designing, materials engineering and testing, surveying, and
building of surface water storage including additions to
existing surface water storage and construction of new
surface water storage facilities, exclusive of any Federal
statutory or regulatory obligations relating to any permit,
review, approval, or other such requirement.
(3) Surface water storage.--The term ``surface water
storage'' means any federally owned facility under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation or any non-Federal
facility used for the surface storage and supply of water
resources.
(4) Treasury rate.--The term ``Treasury rate'' means the
20-year Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT) rate published by
the United States Department of the Treasury existing on the
effective date of the contract.
(5) Water users' association.--The term ``water users'
association'' means--
(A) an entity organized and recognized under State laws
that is eligible to enter into contracts with reclamation to
receive contract water for delivery to and users of the water
and to pay applicable charges; and
(B) includes a variety of entities with different names and
differing functions, such as associations, conservatory
district, irrigation district, municipality, and water
project contract unit.
TITLE X--SAFETY OF DAMS
SEC. 1001. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS.
The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 is amended--
[[Page H5271]]
(1) in section 3, by striking ``Construction'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in section 5B, construction'';
and
(2) by inserting after section 5A (43 U.S.C. 509) the
following:
``SEC. 5B. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS.
``Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary determines
that additional project benefits, including but not limited
to additional conservation storage capacity, are feasible and
not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary
is authorized to develop additional project benefits through
the construction of new or supplementary works on a project
in conjunction with the Secretary's activities under section
2 of this Act and subject to the conditions described in the
feasibility study, provided--
``(1) the Secretary determines that developing additional
project benefits through the construction of new or
supplementary works on a project will promote more efficient
management of water and water-related facilities;
``(2) the feasibility study pertaining to additional
project benefits has been authorized pursuant to section 8 of
the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C.
4601-18); and
``(3) the costs associated with developing the additional
project benefits are agreed to in writing between the
Secretary and project proponents and shall be allocated to
the authorized purposes of the structure and repaid
consistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation law
(the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) and Acts
supplemental to and amendatory of that Act.''.
TITLE XI--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Water Rights Protection
Act''.
SEC. 1102. DEFINITION OF WATER RIGHT.
In this title, the term ``water right'' means any surface
or groundwater right filed, permitted, certified, confirmed,
decreed, adjudicated, or otherwise recognized by a judicial
proceeding or by the State in which the user acquires
possession of the water or puts the water to beneficial use,
including water rights for federally recognized Indian
tribes.
SEC. 1103. TREATMENT OF WATER RIGHTS.
The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not--
(1) condition or withhold, in whole or in part, the
issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension of any permit,
approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way,
or other land use or occupancy agreement on--
(A) limitation or encumbrance of any water right, or the
transfer of any water right (including joint and sole
ownership), directly or indirectly to the United States or
any other designee; or
(B) any other impairment of any water right, in whole or in
part, granted or otherwise recognized under State law, by
Federal or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, or
pursuant to any interstate water compact;
(2) require any water user (including any federally
recognized Indian tribe) to apply for or acquire a water
right in the name of the United States under State law as a
condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension
of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement,
right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement;
(3) assert jurisdiction over groundwater withdrawals or
impacts on groundwater resources, unless jurisdiction is
asserted, and any regulatory or policy actions taken pursuant
to such assertion are, consistent with, and impose no greater
restrictions or regulatory requirements than, applicable
State laws (including regulations) and policies governing the
protection and use of groundwater resources; or
(4) infringe on the rights and obligations of a State in
evaluating, allocating, and adjudicating the waters of the
State originating on or under, or flowing from, land owned or
managed by the Federal Government.
SEC. 1104. RECOGNITION OF STATE AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--In carrying out section 1103, the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture
shall--
(1) recognize the longstanding authority of the States
relating to evaluating, protecting, allocating, regulating,
and adjudicating groundwater by any means, including a
rulemaking, permitting, directive, water court adjudication,
resource management planning, regional authority, or other
policy; and
(2) coordinate with the States in the adoption and
implementation by the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture of any rulemaking, policy,
directive, management plan, or other similar Federal action
so as to ensure that such actions are consistent with, and
impose no greater restrictions or regulatory requirements
than, State groundwater laws and programs.
(b) Effect on State Water Rights.--In carrying out this
title, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall not take any action that adversely
affects--
(1) any water rights granted by a State;
(2) the authority of a State in adjudicating water rights;
(3) definitions established by a State with respect to the
term ``beneficial use'', ``priority of water rights'', or
``terms of use'';
(4) terms and conditions of groundwater withdrawal,
guidance and reporting procedures, and conservation and
source protection measures established by a State;
(5) the use of groundwater in accordance with State law; or
(6) any other rights and obligations of a State established
under State law.
SEC. 1105. EFFECT OF TITLE.
(a) Effect on Existing Authority.--Nothing in this title
limits or expands any existing legally recognized authority
of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture to issue, grant, or condition any permit,
approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way,
or other land use or occupancy agreement on Federal land
subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively.
(b) Effect on Reclamation Contracts.--Nothing in this title
interferes with Bureau of Reclamation contracts entered into
pursuant to the reclamation laws.
(c) Effect on Endangered Species Act.--Nothing in this
title affects the implementation of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(d) Effect on Federal Reserved Water Rights.--Nothing in
this title limits or expands any existing or claimed reserved
water rights of the Federal Government on land administered
by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(e) Effect on Federal Power Act.--Nothing in this title
limits or expands authorities under sections 4(e), 10(j), or
18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e), 803(j), 811).
(f) Effect on Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title
limits or expands any water right or treaty right of any
federally recognized Indian tribe.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
204. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In the table of contents, in the matter regarding section
204, strike ``calfed'' and insert ``CALFED''.
Page 155, line 19, strike ``All repayment contracts'' and
insert ``Except for those repayment contracts under which the
contractor has previously negotiated for prepayment, all
repayment contracts''.
Page 157, line 11, strike ``The following'' and insert
``Except for those repayment contracts under which the
contractor has previously negotiated for prepayment, the
following''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes one technical
change to the bill by capitalizing an acronym in the table of contents
and makes one clarifying change to title IX by ensuring that those who
have already negotiated prepayments of their debt to the U.S. Treasury
are not impacted by provisions in that title.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HUFFMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) has
the right to close.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not oppose this technical
amendment to the bill, but I do want to point out that fixing typos and
realphabetizing indexes and other technical changes do not fix the much
deeper problems with this bill and do not change the reality that it is
not going to become law because it has deep substantive problems that
need to be addressed.
That is why it is so widely opposed, as it has been in prior years,
when essentially the same bill has been run through on party lines.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr.
Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
[[Page H5272]]
Mr. Chairman, while this amendment does make technical changes that
were agreed upon in committee, it speaks to, I think, a much larger
question, which is the debate we have been having here, and that is: Is
this, in fact, a work in progress? I submit that it is.
Obviously, this legislation would not be signed into law under its
current form, and I think many of those who are supporting the
legislation understand that; but we understand that, in fact, there is
a crisis, a drought affecting every region of California.
For those of us who feel very strongly about trying to maintain a
strong agricultural economy, we know we have to work together. The fact
is California produces half--half--of the Nation's fruits and
vegetables, and these are 300 commodities that are so important to not
only America's food supply but to a good healthy diet and to ensure
that, in fact, we can compete around the world as it relates to
ensuring that America remains independent in producing its own food.
There is a lot at stake here. We need to work together as this
process goes along. We will have serious areas of disagreement, but
that doesn't mean we can't continue to work together.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close when the
gentleman is finished.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, we don't oppose this technical
amendment, but we wish that there were substantive amendments that
might address some of the deep flaws that have prevented this bill from
having any chance of becoming law in prior years and will again this
year.
I will just close by quoting from the Los Angeles Times. It states:
A competing Democratic bill, H.R. 2983 by Representative
Jared Huffman, has some areas of overlap. Like the Valadao
bill, it reasonably calls on the Federal Government to
accelerate feasibility studies for a number of proposed dams
that have been stuck for years in the planning phase.
Republicans, of course, have faith that the dams will pencil
out and will be funded. Many Democrats are convinced that the
yield numbers--the amount of additional water that would be
stored and the associated dollar cost--would be so paltry as
to finally put an end to the discussion.
In other areas, though, the Huffman bill is starkly
different and, frankly, much smarter, focusing on updating
Federal water policies and practices that today are firmly
rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge and
technology.
There is a lot we could be working on together substantively. We
certainly have no problem with the technical changes here, but it is
high time that we have hearings and serious deliberations and
discussions about substance. If we do that, we might just find that
there are some common solutions that could become law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my colleague
that, in the 112th Congress, this bill went through one of the most
exhaustive public processes of any bill heard by Congress.
Its genesis was in two public hearings in the Central Valley in 2010
and 2011. It was vetted through not one, but two public hearings in
Washington in which minority Democrats called twice as many witnesses
as majority Republicans.
On the House floor, every Democratic amendment was made in order and
considered. In fact, over the past 5 years, we have held 18 hearings on
various versions of this bill. We consulted 60 water agencies
throughout northern and central California, including many in
Democratic districts.
The bill was taken up again in the 113th Congress and redebated. This
time, extensive negotiations took place between House and Senate
Members. The fact is there are few issues in this Congress that have
been more thoroughly debated than those encompassed in this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 39, line 10, after ``water weed,'' insert ``water
hyacinth,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and
straightforward but addresses a critical issue affecting the economy,
the environment, and the health of the delta as well as other regions
throughout the State.
This amendment adds water hyacinth to the list of invasive species to
be considered for a pilot project established by the bill. The water
hyacinth is an extremely invasive weed that has taken over the delta.
Take a look at the picture. This channel is completely blocked over
by the weed. It can double in size every 10 days. It has seeds that
remain buried in sediment and remain viable for 20 years. It is
difficult to remove mechanically and to manage through pesticides.
The result is what you see here in this picture. It clogs waterways,
preventing the movement of water through the delta. It negatively
affects farmers, recreational opportunities, and disrupts the national
ecosystem. These effects have only been worsened by the drought.
I represent the Port of Stockton. This is the third largest inland
port in the Nation. The hyacinth affects traffic in and out of the
port, preventing navigation of the channels at night because of ships
that can't navigate between the weeds, the levees, and smaller vessels.
This causes unreasonable delays and costs importers approximately
$200,000 in additional expenses per year. Last year alone, the port had
to remove more than 2 million tons of the plants. Even Stockton's
Christmas lighted boat parade had to be canceled for the first time in
its 35-year history.
Eradicating this invasive species will take a holistic approach,
involving stakeholders at all levels. I have heard from the marina
owners, farmers, environmental organizations, and local communities on
how the water hyacinth continues to impact their lives on a daily
basis.
I was fortunate enough to help secure $1 million in Federal funding
to help an existing effort between Federal, State, and local partners
focused on managing the water hyacinth infestation, but these efforts
are just the beginning. This amendment ensures that we continue
building off the current work.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. DeSaulnier,
and Mr. Costa, for joining me on this amendment. I urge its adoption.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my
colleague.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the delta.
This is but one small example of what we ought to be doing, and that
is working together to solve very, very complex problems.
Unfortunately, the underlying legislation really is not the result of
the kind of interaction that is necessary.
Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta. That delta is as large as the
Westlands Water District, and it also happens to be the largest estuary
on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. It is
absolutely an essential element in the environment of the entire West
Coast of the United States; yet the underlying legislation ignores the
fact that those of us who represent this area have been no part of the
legislation.
If we work together, we can solve problems such as water hyacinth and
the next amendment, which I will be taking up. I want to commend Mr.
McNerney for putting forth this amendment and hopefully beginning the
interaction necessary to develop a proper water bill for all
California.
{time} 1045
Mr. McNERNEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney) for offering this amendment.
Water hyacinth is a significant problem that has impacted the
operations of both the Central Valley water
[[Page H5273]]
project as well as the State Water Project.
This year, as a result of water hyacinth infestation, pumping at the
Jones Pumping Plant was reduced significantly for periods of time that
resulted in the loss of water. Local water contractors responded in a
collaborative manner to help remove that infestation that we see there,
over 89,000 cubic yards of hyacinth at a cost of almost $2 million to
remove it to try to get the operations to continue.
Luckily, the capacity at the State pump, Banks pump, provided an
opportunity to make up the difference. However, we may not be so lucky
in the future.
So I want to support this amendment. It impacts not just cities,
boaters, and recreationalists, but farmers and the entire region. This
is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McNERNEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in
opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, represent San Joaquin County, along
with Representative McNerney, and believe that this is a solution to a
big problem that we share within the delta.
This native species is something that needs to be managed and is a
welcome amendment to this bill. This amendment rightly focuses on the
invasive plant that can have devastating impacts on fish and other
organisms in the delta.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 48, after line 19, insert the following:
(4) collaborate with the California Department of Water
Resources to install a fish screen at the Delta Cross Channel
Gates in coordination with operations to protect migrating
smelt and salmonids;
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the previous
amendment, is simple but very important.
We heard the discussion from Mr. McNerney and supporters of his
amendment about the water hyacinth and the endangered species that have
plagued not just the California delta, but other parts of the West.
It is important. This amendment is also a small but important
amendment. It deals with a way of providing a fish screen on the Delta
Cross Channel, a very important element in the California water system.
Why this hasn't been done before, I don't know.
I live within a mile of the Delta Cross Channel, and I have often
wondered why the agencies have not pursued a fish screen. They have to
close the channel gates when the fish are in the river, thereby
providing less water through the delta. So this would simply move it
along.
These two amendments are an example of what we ought to be doing.
Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta, which is 700,000 acres, equal
in size to the area that is the principal proponent of the underlying
legislation, that is the Westlands Water District. Both are important
and critical agriculture areas, both of which need water.
The underlying legislation ignores the environmental needs and the
agricultural needs of the delta, and in a very complex way provides a
mechanism to take water out of the delta without regard to either the
environmental or the agricultural or the community needs in the area.
It is not going to pass. It should never become law. It is an example
of how not to solve California water problems. The way you solve
California water problems are with amendments such as Mr. McNerney's or
this amendment that I am putting forth and serious discussions between
those of us who represent the delta.
I would also like to point out to my colleagues who are proponents of
this bill that I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, from the
very end of it--that is at San Francisco Bay--to an area 199.6 miles
upriver, including virtually all of the rice industry of California, of
which there are some 600,000 acres, and nearly half of that acreage is
fallow this year.
So the drought isn't just about the impact on the San Joaquin Valley
system, of which we have heard much debate this morning. It is also
about the Sacramento Valley north of the delta, where the drought has
had a major impact.
California needs to work together in the immediate situation, which
it is actually doing. The Federal and State governments' water policy
through the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Fish and Wildlife Agency--both the State and Federal Government
have done yeoman's work, extraordinary work, stretching the water
supplies of California. This bill would override that effort and make
it impossible for them to continue.
God help us if the drought goes another year--it could--in which case
this bill, if it would become law, all that has been done in California
over this last 3 years to stretch the water supplies would be pushed
aside.
We shouldn't do it that way. We should be working together. Mr.
Huffman has a good piece of legislation that has already achieved
statewide support from water contractors, from those who understand the
intricacies of this system. We can do it if we sat down together. And
that has not happened.
For those of us who represent the delta and north of the delta, we
find this to be objectionable and we find it to be rather foolish.
There is a middle ground. But don't, as this bill does, push aside the
environmental laws, which are the only protections for the largest
estuary system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Don't do
that.
Why would you destroy the salmon fisheries? Why would you destroy
700,000 acres and the water supplies for the Bay area? You shouldn't do
that. You don't need to do that.
There are rational and reasonable ways to solve the California water
problem. Some of it is in this bill. The storage systems are good, well
done, but don't do that in a way that pushes aside the environmental
protections that provide the balance not just for the environment, but
for the communities that are affected. Don't do that. We can work
together. Just give us a chance to do so, which you have not thus far
done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California talks about a
bill that he is not willing to support, but yet he wants to amend a
bill that he says is going nowhere.
The truth is the bill is going somewhere. This bill is going to move
off this floor and move into the Senate. It is time for the Senate to
show some action. It is time for the two bodies to actually do what
they are supposed to do and work together to find a solution for
California.
To do nothing is criminal. To do nothing will put farms out of
business, will create much higher unemployment than seen anywhere else
in the country, and will devastate a food supply that feeds the rest of
the Nation and much of the world.
Now this amendment in particular has some problems. In conversations
with the Bureau of Reclamation, they have not asked for this project
and they have no money identified for the project. I am unaware of the
State of California's position as well.
[[Page H5274]]
Fish screens are hugely expensive projects. They are subject to
destruction under high flow events due to debris and restrict
recreation.
I am concerned that this project is not even feasible. What this
project aims to do is make sure that water is not transferred south of
the delta. What many of my friends forget is, as I represent San
Joaquin County, Mountain House, a community--not just farmland--that
gets a zero allocation, is south of the delta. It actually exports
water. So does Tracy, Manteca, Ripon, Escalon, areas in San Joaquin
that I represent that are south of the delta.
This is not an us against them fight. This is a fight for the
survival of California. And it is not just about an emergency transfer
of water. It is about the future of California. Do we want to have
enough water for all of our residents? Do we want our number one
industry, agriculture, to be a vibrant industry?
We have the opportunity to have greater storage. And we ought to have
some commonsense solutions in the process. You talk about wanting to
save fish? Why not get rid of the predator fish, or at least go out and
harvest some of them so they are not eating 98 percent of the fish that
you say you are trying to help?
There are commonsense solutions in here that will allow us to have
greater flexibility, greater storage, and a better plan for the future
of California. We should not be wasting water and just allowing
freshwater to get pushed arbitrarily out to the ocean.
This is sound environmental policy that will help us in the future
and gives us a negotiating point with the Senate, Republicans and
Democrats actually working together, for a solution that helps us in
California.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 65, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the following
(and redesignate the subsequent provisions accordingly):
(2) complete the feasibility study described in clause
(i)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30,
2016;
(3) complete a publicly available draft of the feasibility
study described in clause (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of
Public Law 108-361 and submit such study to the appropriate
committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate not
later than November 30, 2016;
(4) complete the feasibility study described in clause
(ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30,
2017;
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with
my neighbor to the north, Mr. Walden, which will protect due process
for water contractors of the Bureau of Reclamation-operated Klamath
Project in California and Oregon.
The amendment confers applicant status on these contractors, ensuring
that they are included in Endangered Species Act consultations that
could affect operations of the water projects they rely upon. Applicant
status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided
by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau considers ESA-
related operational changes.
While the Bureau has, in its own words, treated the contractors in a
manner similar to applicants since the 1990s, and local Indian tribes
have invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not
granted them the protections and inputs the full applicant status would
provide, which is why we need the bill.
H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally
operated Central Valley Project in California.
Mr. DENHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. I believe the gentleman has two amendments today.
Mr. LaMALFA. Yes. This first amendment is on the Klamath Project.
Are the amendments out of order? They are out of numerical order.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on the Sites Reservoir. This
helps complete a surface water storage project feasibility study by
aligning the bill's language with the MOU recently signed by the Bureau
of Reclamation and project stakeholders.
{time} 1100
Sites Reservoir has been studied for decades, but stakeholders
recently agreed to help fund the study's completion. Last year,
California's voters authorized billions in funding for projects like
Sites, but the State cannot determine which projects to invest in until
the feasibility studies are complete.
This is a key project to help the State prepare for future droughts,
and the State Department of Water Resources found that it would
generate an additional 900,000 acre-feet of water during drought years.
That is enough for 7.2 million people per year.
This noncontroversial amendment helps to allow Californians to invest
in their own water infrastructure, which is a laudable goal that I
think we should all support.
I have been pleased to sponsor a bill with my colleague, Mr.
Garamendi, aimed at advancing this project, and I hope I will have your
support today on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in
opposition, though I am not opposed to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleague mentioned, this amendment updates the
bill to be consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Sites Joint Powers Authority.
As has been noted by speakers on both sides, California last year
came together, in a bipartisan, overwhelming way, to provide $7.5
billion for improving our water system to provide more funding for the
tools in our water toolbox to provide greater reliability throughout
California; $2.7 billion of that water bond measure was set aside for
water storage projects. This is one of the projects that can
participate in that funding.
I support this effort because increased storage capacity--both
surface, as well as groundwater recharge--is absolutely necessary to
provide the additional resiliency and reliability in California's water
system.
I support the construction of Sites Reservoir, working in conjunction
with increasing the supply of Shasta Reservoir, by increasing that dam,
would provide additional water supply, as well as Temperance Flat, as
well as the expansion of Los Vaqueros, which is underway by the Contra
Costa Water District, as well as the expansion of San Luis Reservoir,
which is allowed for in this legislation, as well as increased
groundwater banking. All of these are part of the solution.
We must expand the storage in the State to reduce the impacts of
future droughts and the population growth; therefore, I support this
amendment.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a technical measure to help
[[Page H5275]]
align the language in H.R. 2898 with the MOU, memorandum of
understanding, that the Bureau of Reclamation has put forward so that
we can expedite the studies for the Sites Reservoir project, one that
we have needed for a long, long time and will be very helpful towards
water solutions for California.
I ask for the support of this very simple technical measure, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply aligns the bill with
the recently signed MOU with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding these
studies. We do not oppose it. It is consistent with an earlier policy
rider added to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Contrary to some of the things we have heard in this debate, I and
other Democrats are not standing in the way of these storage studies.
The delta smelt and the environmental laws are not standing in the way
of these storage studies.
In fact, my own drought bill, H.R. 2983, provides crucial funding and
direction to the Bureau of Reclamation to finish CALFED feasibility
studies that have the financing possible to be completed within the
next 10 years.
We do support finishing these studies. Now, some of these projects
may pencil out, but I think it has become clear over the many, many
years these studies have languished that some of these projects have
turned into zombie reservoirs which won't go away because project
proponents have never been forced to fully account for how their
financing will actually work.
Many of these projects will not pencil out, but it is high time that
we complete the studies, face the reality, and get the information so
that we can move on with real water solutions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Calvert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 81, line 3, strike ``3'' and insert ``2''.
Page 81, line 12, strike ``and''.
Page 81, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 81, after line 15, insert the following:
``(vi) 1 member shall be a representative of a wildlife
entity that primarily focuses on waterfowl.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 2898, we establish an oversight board for the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
What my amendment does is simple. It adds an additional conservation
seat to the 11-member board, which will provide parity between the
environmental and user group interests.
The advisory board reflects the interests of agriculture, municipal
and industrial users, power contractors, wildlife refuges, in addition
to the economic impacts of water operations, so that the Secretary of
the Interior will receive recommendations that encompass a broad
perspective.
The reason for my amendment is also simple, to ensure that a more
balanced and effective approach is being taken as the Secretary of the
Interior prioritizes spending levels on projects and programs carried
out through the restoration fund.
Again, in closing, my amendment strikes a better balance between
conservation and user groups interests on the 11-member board and will
help to ensure that the annual surcharges water and power users
contribute will be spent on the most effective methods in habitat
restoration and environmental mitigation.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and commend the
author for offering it.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in
opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the author for his concern
about waterfowl and wildlife. This amendment, by itself, is not
harmful, but it is important to acknowledge that it doesn't come close
to curing the problems with this bill that are, in fact, very harmful
to fish and wildlife.
The gentleman's amendment seeks to provide cover in some ways to
proponents of this bill who are now coming under fire from the
California Waterfowl Association and other sportsmen's groups because
this bill hurts migratory birds and other wildlife and waterfowl.
The California Waterfowl Association is on record opposing this bill
because: ``It would eliminate water supplies for California migratory
waterfowl and other wetlands-dependent species.''
Other sportsmen's groups also oppose. Trout Unlimited has spoken out
against the bill because it would weaken protections for steelhead and
salmon.
While I do not oppose this bill, it is important not to suggest that
this bill is somehow good for or supported by hunters or sportsmen's
groups. It is not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very legitimate concern that my colleagues
are dealing with in terms of how funds are being spent by the
restoration programs and how we provide support for the efforts to
provide more accountability and improve the transparency of the
expenditures of the fund.
I appreciate and support my colleague's amendment to improve the
makeup of the advisory board, which I think is important. However, I
think that adding one more waterfowl representative needs to be done to
try to provide additional balance in terms of the representation of the
various interests on the board.
Let me finally say I represent Grasslands, a large part of Grasslands
district, which is the largest part of the Pacific Flyway in terms of
almost 200,000 acres of contiguous wetlands, and they have raised some
issues as relates to this legislation, and we are going to work those
out because, in fact, that is a very important part of the Pacific
Flyway.
In addition to that, the flexibility that we create in the underlying
bill really is, in part, to ensure that we do provide water, even the
limited water available, so that we can maintain this important
habitat.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. It
is a simple amendment. This is a process, as my friend from California
has mentioned. After we move this bill forward today, we will have the
opportunity, hopefully, to conference with the Senate. Hopefully, they
can pass a bill in the Senate, and we can do something good for the
State of California.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Costa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise for an amendment that is before the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 92, after line 19, insert the following:
SEC. 611. REPORT ON RESULTS OF WATER USAGE.
The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Natural Resources
of the State of California, shall publish an annual report
[[Page H5276]]
detailing instream flow releases from the Central Valley
Project and California State Water Project, their explicit
purpose and authority, and all measured environmental benefit
as a result of the releases.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, and the ranking member, since the early 1990s,
the Federal and State lawmakers and regulators have made a number of
policy choices to implement the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water
Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. All of these have
had good intentions.
From the Trinity River, to the Shasta Reservoir, to the San Francisco
Bay Delta, and up to the San Joaquin River, about 3.5 million acre-feet
of Central Valley Project and California State Water Project have been
as a result of those acts rededicated for environmental management
purposes.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act alone, since its
enactment, has resulted in over 17 million acre-feet of water being
reprioritized for different needs and for different purposes.
It is important to note that this doesn't mean that the water, in
reprioritization, doesn't continue to serve multiple purposes within
the system because it does; but it does mean that the use has been
prioritized so that, in fact, it must meet environmental objectives
over that of human needs, which are a distant second to the
environmental uses of this water as a result of the passage of those
previous acts.
These changes, I believe, have harmed a large number of Californians,
including those from small, rural, and often disadvantaged communities
that I represent, as well as to the larger areas that are dependent
upon this water supply, whether we talk about Santa Clara in Silicon
Valley or Los Angeles, in the metropolitan water district.
Approximately 25 million people and 7 of the Nation's top 10
agricultural counties have seen their water supply diminish and their
water cost escalate over the last 20 years; that is a fact, and as my
colleagues say, facts are hard to dispute. The increased cost has been
there, and the reduction of the water supply is, in fact, a result of
this.
Many of the farmers I serve have seen their water supplies diminish
to 40 percent--40 percent--of their long-term average and have received
no surface water--no surface water--for the last 2 years.
Communities that I have represented have had their drinking wells go
dry, leaving entire towns without a water supply for drinking or
bathing. These are incredibly harmful impacts to a very simple
question.
We ought to know the benefits. Has society benefited from the policy
changes to dedicate the water for these important environmental
purposes, like preventing the extinction of species, which none of us
want to do?
The answer, I am sad to say, is it seems to have had not the impact
that was intended because the species continue to decline.
Unfortunately, though, notwithstanding efforts within the Federal
agencies, the State agencies, and the National Academy of Sciences, we
don't really know. We don't really know because we don't have an
accurate reporting or accounting of how end-stream flows are used and
what benefit is expected to be achieved by them and whether the benefit
was achieved by those flows.
{time} 1115
I would certainly feel a little better knowing that we are increasing
the species, the salmonoid in California, notwithstanding the loss of
water. In fact, the salmonoid have continued to decline.
The dedication of millions of acre-feet of water and the expenditure
of billions of dollars has resulted in a water supply situation that
has never been worse for all of California. Likewise, the condition of
the species to which we have dedicated so much has never been so much
at risk.
The latest delta smelt population index is zero, and the status of
protected salmon is in serious doubt. While the extinction of these
species isn't probable, given the hatchery-based fish populations, the
potential loss of wild populations is of grave concern to all of us.
One thing that the drought has achieved to make operational
priorities of the project abundantly clear is that the first priority
of the projects, besides this cosharing, is flood control. God, I would
pray that it would flood in California. I would love to have what they
are having in Texas.
The second priority is followed by salmon temperature management,
which is very problematic right now as a result of this drought. This
is followed by protecting the bay-delta water quality--people ought to
have good water quality; I want my friends in the bay area to drink
good, fresh water--and, finally, any possible deliveries to the
communities for the refuge wildlife, which I spoke to a moment ago,
that includes grasslands and other refuges, as well as our farms, our
farms that produce the food.
I am introducing this amendment to create at least some
accountability and transparency in the environmental management efforts
underway so that we can better understand and so we can measure what is
working and what isn't working. That is why this amendment is
important.
I ask that it be adopted for all the reasons that I have stated.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have another amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 92, line 20, insert the following new section:
SEC. 611. KLAMATH PROJECT CONSULTATION APPLICANTS.
If the Bureau of Reclamation initiates or reinitiates
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7(a)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)),
with respect to construction or operation of the Klamath
Project (or any part thereof), Klamath Project contractors
shall be accorded all the rights and responsibilities
extended to applicants in the consultation process. Upon
request of the Klamath Project contractors, they may be
represented through an association or organization.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this is the much anticipated amendment
having to do with the Klamath project that I am offering with my
neighbor, Mr. Walden, from the north side of the border.
The amendment again confers applicant status on those contractors
that are involved in the Klamath project, ensuring that they are
included in the Endangered Species Act consultations that could affect
operations of the water project they rely upon.
Applicant status also ensures that information and alternative
actions provided by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau
considers ESA-related operational changes.
While the Bureau has, in its words, treated the contractors ``in a
manner similar to applicants'' since the 1990s and local tribes have
invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not granted
them the protections and input that the full applicant status would
provide.
H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally
operated Central Valley Project in California, and this simply ensures
that all Federal water contractors in the region receive equal legal
protections.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa) for yielding and for working with me on this amendment as
well, which will assist our Klamath project farmers in the Klamath
Basin.
As you pointed out, there is a long history of water issues in this
basin and there is much work to be done.
[[Page H5277]]
Frankly, a basin-wide, long-term solution is what is most needed. While
we are working toward that solution, these issues remain.
In the interim, it is critical that we pass this amendment to simply
formalize the rule of the Klamath project irrigators by giving them
applicant status for ESA consultations.
The Klamath project contractors have existing contracts with the
Bureau of Reclamation, and they are directly affected by Reclamation's
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
In recent years, as you mentioned, the Klamath project contractors
have provided input to the section 7 consultations through the
invitation of the Klamath tribes. I would like to thank the Klamath
tribes and especially Klamath Tribal Chairman Don Gentry for working
with the project contractors through this process.
So passing this amendment would only formalize the practice that has
already been occurring and ensure the project contractors could
continue this process in the future.
To legislatively designate the project contractors as having the role
of applicants would not change the substantive obligations of the
Bureau of Reclamation under the ESA or the obligations of the wildlife
agencies to prepare biological opinions.
So I would ask my colleagues to join us in formalizing a process that
has been sort of informal along the way, but inconsistent at times, and
give the consistency there that is important to continue the
discussions that are underway in the basin.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am the other neighbor on this Klamath-
Trinity water system. I didn't have the benefit of working with my
colleagues on this legislation.
My hope, as we go forward, is that we could be a little more
neighborly and try to talk with each other and work together on this
system that affects our mutual constituents.
Mr. Chair, as if the underlying bill, which includes numerous
assaults on the Endangered Species Act, is not bad enough,
unfortunately, this is an amendment that would make it even worse.
It plays favorites among stakeholders, elevating agriculture above
all else at the expense of the environment and other cultural and
economic interests.
As if the Klamath water contractors don't have things good enough
with taxpayer-subsidized water and zero-interest loans, this amendment
seeks to give them special status and significantly more leverage
during the Endangered Species Act consultation process.
As long as the project is in place, the Bureau of Reclamation has a
duty to manage it for the benefit of all stakeholders. That is
important.
The interests of the water contractors are certainly no more
legitimate than those of the Klamath tribes for whom endangered fish
are part of their cultural heritage, nor are they more important than
the interests of commercial and recreational fishermen, who generate
hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy and continue to wait
patiently for the restoration of fish stocks vital to their
livelihoods.
In addition to being a bad deal for tribes and fishermen, this
amendment is yet another attempt by House Republicans to drive the
extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
Let's be honest. Giving agricultural interests privileged status in
``helping'' to determine the fate of endangered coho salmon and
endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers is nothing short of a death
sentence for those species.
It is past time for my colleagues across the aisle to stop blaming
the Endangered Species Act for all of their ills. Fish did not cause
the drought, and killing them will not make it go away.
The better solution is to make water use more sustainable for
Californians and the environment that they cherish.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, it is a little harder to be neighborly when
the facts get twisted around and the intent of the bill is
misconstrued.
Indeed, this has been a collaborative process with the Bureau, the
tribes inviting information from those stakeholders that are the water
contractors.
This would simply confer a status upon them that would make them
fully at the table as an applicant. It doesn't do anything to change
the allocation or any other factor of those water contractors or give
them any favorite status.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I would just say, as somebody who has been
involved in these issues going back to 1999, I have worked with the
tribes. I have worked with irrigators to prove fish passage and to help
improve fish health.
So I really take offense to the kind of language you are using here
on the floor because we have done a lot of good to put fish screens in,
to help improve the survivability of the suckers, to put more water
aside. We have done a lot of good things.
So I welcome you to this House, and I welcome you to work with us on
these issues, but I have to tell you it is a little offensive in your
comments.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. We could start working together on the Klamath
restoration settlement and, moving forward, that legislation.
I hope that we can begin to talk together. We have legitimate
interests on both sides of the State border and at both ends of this
important watershed.
Mr. WALDEN. If the gentleman will yield, I am just saying there is a
better way to have this discussion than hurling the kind of language
you are hurling around, because a lot of us have worked, both sides,
bipartisan, and a lot of work. I open the door to have those
conversations with you as well.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds the gentleman from Oregon that
the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) controls the time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, the ESA requires us to use the best available
science and information and have all the stakeholders able to be at the
table, such as having full applicant status, for the Klamath water
users.
Having them as an applicant just gets more information and more input
from everybody that might be affected by possible ESA decisions.
We would love to work in a collaborative, neighborly process around
here. When the rhetoric flies so much that accuses us, accuses that
water users up there a long time, that have had a promise made to them
by the Federal Government of being something other than what they are,
it does make it difficult. And it is the kind of thing that the
American people, as they view the operations on TV, really get tired
of.
So I would be one that would love to cooperate and get a result. But
on this amendment here, we need this help for those contractors to have
a fair seat at the table.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 114-204.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 162, line 5, strike ``into the'' and all that follows
through line 15, and insert ``for projects that reclaim and
reuse wastewaters.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
[[Page H5278]]
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, before I speak to my amendment, I want to
acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her
input on this amendment and for her long advocacy for water reuse,
recycling, and conservation, and for emphasizing that we need a near-
term water-creation strategy, along with a long-term sustainable
strategy. H.R. 2898 is not that long-term sustainable strategy.
Californians and others across the west need drought relief now. The
proponents of this legislation know that it will not provide that
immediate relief. They also know their bill will never become law.
So why are we here today, wasting everybody's time? It is simply
because House Republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to
attack the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
The allegation that environmental laws have restricted dam
construction is patently false. In fact, it was President Reagan who
first sought to help curb the deficit by turning off the tap of easy
Federal money that had funded multi-billion-dollar boondoggles and pork
barrel dam projects.
Building new dams takes forever because it doesn't make economic
sense without heavy government subsidies. Instead of flushing
taxpayers' dollars, we should be investing in projects that recycle
wastewater, create reuse, and provide immediate water supplies.
Eight-seven percent of California's wastewater, hundreds of billions
of gallons of water that could supply the needs of agriculture and
people, is lost to the Pacific Ocean each year because we do not have
enough water recycling projects in place. This is literally an ocean of
missed opportunity.
{time} 1130
Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates new water for the people of
California. If Republicans were serious about solving this drought
problem, they would have written a bill that creates new water. Sadly,
they have not. Instead, they have written a bill that uses a very real
crisis to attack the ESA and NEPA.
This bill insults people who are suffering through this historic
drought, and it is just the latest example of House Republicans
blocking public participation in government and driving the extinction
of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
I agree with my colleagues; this is a manmade drought. It is manmade
because we are not conserving and recycling water that we have and
because we are wasting time on this bill instead of planning to
increase water supplies in the short term and in long-term sustainable
strategies.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier this is a time of
choosing between two very different visions. The Democrats offer us a
vision of scarcity and astronomical water prices. We have been trying
it their way--it doesn't end well. Our bill serves a different vision
of abundant water and hydroelectricity at affordable prices--and the
prosperity and the quality of life that means for every American.
Water is plentiful, but it is unevenly distributed over time. We
build reservoirs to store water in wet years so that we have it in dry
ones. We stopped building major reservoirs over 1 million acre-feet 40
years ago because of policies imposed on us by the very same voices
that we now hear raised against this bill. The Sacramento River is
bigger than the Colorado, yet we store 70 million acre-feet on the
Colorado and only 10 million acre-feet on the Sacramento.
We will not solve our water shortage until we build more dams. That
is what our bill does.
This amendment would scrap this vision of abundance for more of the
same--not more water, only more conservation, more recycling, and more
doing with less. Conservation is important in a drought, but
conservation is the management of a shortage. Managing a shortage does
not solve a shortage. Only abundance can do that.
Mr. Chairman, when we confuse conservation with supply, as these
voices from the left always do, in a real drought, we discover that we
have already played that card and we no longer have it available to
stretch supplies in an emergency.
Mr. Chairman, new dams not only mean more abundant water for the
West; they provide clean, cheap, and reliable hydroelectricity. They
provide flood control to protect regions that would otherwise be
inundated and uninhabitable. They assure year-round flows of water to
riparian habitats that would otherwise be desiccated in drought and
devastated by flood. All of these benefits would be sacrificed on the
altar of the environmental left by this amendment.
Supply or shortage, that is the question. This bill opens up a new
era of supply. This amendment takes us further down the road of coping
with shortage not as a temporary stopgap, but as a way of life.
Well, we have had a taste of that way of life. We have watched our
lawns turn brown. We have watched our water bills skyrocket. We have
watched businesses shut down. We have watched thousands of farmworkers
thrown out of work. We have seen food lines in the fertile agricultural
region of the West. We have had enough.
Mr. Chairman, we seek a new future where water and hydroelectricity
are abundant and inexpensive, where jobs are plentiful, where grocery
shelves are full, where water police are not knocking on the door
because we have taken too long in the shower, and where our lawns and
gardens are green again.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times had an article entitled,
``Editorial: GOP Water Bill in Congress Should Be Rejected.'' It
compared the two pieces of legislation, Jared Huffman's H.R. 2983 and
the bill that is on the floor today, H.R. 2898. The conclusion was that
we needed a commonsense, comprehensive approach.
The article says, ``the Huffman bill is starkly different and frankly
much smarter, focusing on updating Federal water policies and practices
that today are firmly rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge
and technology.''
It is a comprehensive approach that my side of the aisle seeks, and
this legislation before us today does nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to another important aspect of the
legislation, which is the issue of relief. Providing a near-term
relief, I think, is essential--that is not to stall a long-term
solution, but to provide the relief that everybody has talked about
that California and the Central Valley needs.
The Central Valley has been described as the ``Salad Bowl'' of
America. The delicious crops that are grown there are consumed by
Americans at a low cost. There is an occasional reference to the people
that day in and day out labor to pick those crops and put them on the
tables of the American people--the farmworkers.
Referencing their dire economic and living conditions that they find
themselves in right now, the conclusion is that we need to proceed to
pass H.R. 2898 to help these farmworkers and their families. I agree;
farmworkers and their families must be a priority for relief. H.R. 2898
doesn't provide any relief to farmworkers and their families.
Mr. Chairman, farmworkers need an investment. They need an investment
in education; they need an investment in housing; they need an
investment in livable incomes, and they need to work on the
concentrated poverty that we find. Those areas of farmworker
communities had one of the highest poverty rates in California before
the drought; they are at a high poverty rate now with the drought; and
if we want to change the course of history, we need to deal with that
issue. We need to continue to restrict pesticide use that harms humans,
and we need to have working conditions and opportunity available to
farmworkers.
Farmworkers don't need crocodile tears. They need relief; they need
attention, and they need investment. They need a relief that is near
term and not one dominated by technology and outmoded strategies that
will not bring that relief to them. We should be about creating
opportunity, creating
[[Page H5279]]
immediate relief, and helping those families not only in the near term,
but in the long term.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for
yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment not because it provides
additional water for reclamation and reuse, which I support. I am
opposed to this amendment because it prevents any of these funds from
being used for storage--groundwater and surface storage water.
As I said earlier, Californians, by over a two-thirds vote, supported
a significant bond measure last year for that water storage, both
surface and groundwater. This amendment would prevent that from
occurring.
Mr. Chairman, let me also talk a little bit about the narrative that
has been coming from some of my colleagues that I just firmly reject
about this legislation and the underlying bill.
This does not--this does not--amend the Endangered Species Act. It
does not provide any kind of a rollback of the endangered species law.
That is just false.
It does not impact the water quality of the delta or the bay. And do
you know why? Because we have a State law in California under Decision
1641 that requires the State Water Board to monitor the level of
salinity in the delta and to protect the water quality for people in
the Bay area who derive their water from that source.
So how could this legislation impact Decision 1641? It simply cannot.
As it relates to the operational flexibility, which has been alluded
to as the great problem in this legislation, much of that flexibility
that we have been urging over 4 years has begun to take place in the
last year or 2. This legislation would take that flexibility that they
finally have begun to do and put that in practice and codify it in law.
That is what this legislation does.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that under the constraints of this
legislation, with this greater flexibility, the Secretary of the
Interior still has the ability to provide the justification, in fact,
if she feels that this flexibility cannot be implemented.
Mr. Chairman, those protections are there. That is what this
legislation does. I urge your support.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-204 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. LaMalfa of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 236, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 443]
AYES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
[[Page H5280]]
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--15
Brat
Byrne
Conyers
Costello (PA)
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Garrett
Hudson
Johnson (GA)
Larson (CT)
Long
Newhouse
Nolan
Smith (WA)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1206
Messrs. McKINLEY, SHIMKUS, and HENSARLING changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RANGEL, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms.
LOFGREN, and Mr. PASCRELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 172, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 444]
AYES--246
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--172
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Conyers
Costello (PA)
Cummings
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Garrett
Graves (MO)
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Joyce
Larson (CT)
Long
Nolan
Pelosi
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1210
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 242, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 445]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
[[Page H5281]]
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--12
Conyers
Costello (PA)
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Garrett
Hudson
Larson (CT)
Long
Marchant
Nolan
Pelosi
Woodall
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1214
Mr. BUCK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2898) to
provide drought relief in the State of California, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 362, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BERA. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bera moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2898 to the
Natural Resources Committee, with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
After section 610, insert the following:
SEC. 611. PROTECTING THE SUPPLY OF WATER FOR DRINKING AND TO
FIGHT WILDFIRES.
Under the provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall
ensure that there is an adequate supply of water--
(1) for residential drinking water that is safe and not
tainted with arsenic, salt, nitrates from fertilizers,
industrial chemicals, or harmful algae, which become
concentrated in diminished water supplies; and
(2) to fight wildfires, utilizing water from reservoirs or
other surface waters, and to honor Tribal water rights.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that we consider it as having been read and we dispense with
the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, this
bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simple. It ensures that we have safe
drinking water for our constituents and enough water to fight
wildfires.
It has been hot and dry in California. We are now in the fourth
straight year of drought conditions; and, in fact, 95 percent of our
State has reached severe drought status. This is a problem.
We are talking about families; we are talking about farmers, small-
business owners who are feeling the pain of this prolonged drought
every day. It is a crisis, and in a crisis, everyone has to come
together, to work together to find solutions that work for all of us.
However, the bill offered today, yet again, undermines the efforts
that were taken in California to work together, and instead, it allows
Washington, D.C., politicians to pick winners and losers and pit
communities against each other. This bill creates no water. It does not
solve this crisis, and that is a problem.
Look at this picture. This is my home district, Folsom Lake. This is
what it looked like last summer, and this summer, it is worse. In fact,
Folsom Lake right now is at 42 percent of capacity. By August, it is
expected to reach the lowest point in recorded history. Over half a
million people depend on Folsom Lake for their drinking water.
We owe it to the families of Folsom, Fair Oaks, Roseville, and all
across the State to work together to better manage the water that we
have. As currently written, this bill would jeopardize their access to
safe water. As water supplies decrease, residential drinking water
risks contamination from higher concentrations of nitrates,
[[Page H5282]]
arsenic, industrial chemicals, and harmful algae.
We owe it to the people in our State to make sure, when they turn on
their taps, they have safe drinking water. Let's work together to find
comprehensive solutions, long-term solutions to ensure their access to
storage. We have got to work together as Democrats and Republicans, not
pit northern California against southern California. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this motion their full
support.
I yield to the gentleman from southern California (Mr. Peters), my
colleague.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, across the West and particularly in
California, we are in the fourth year of a prolonged drought that is
placing us at increased risk for wildfires.
The underlying bill would harm not just one community or industrial
sector, but would undercut years of existing water policy and put
communities like mine in San Diego in more danger. The images of
depleted reservoirs, lakes, and streams drying up abound, with millions
of dead trees littering our forests. As The New York Times reported
just yesterday: ``For those who know fire, fuel is now all they see.''
We are in the midst of what we expect to be a long and harsh wildfire
season. Just since January 1, California fire officials have responded
to more than 3,300 wildfires, which is a thousand more than the average
from the last 5 years.
The lake fire that started just a month ago has consumed an area of
national forest roughly the size of San Francisco, and the dozens of
wildfires that erupted in San Diego last May burned thousands of acres
and destroyed 65 homes. Projections show that the cost of fighting
wildfires this year could reach up to $2.1 billion, far above the
roughly $450 million spent annually in the 1990s.
It is not just money at stake. Two of the most deadly wildfires in
California history, the Witch and Cedar fires occurred in San Diego and
killed 17 people. This is also a matter of life and death.
This bill does not make it rain; no one can do that. It simply
undermines the State of California's water policies to move water away
from one set of communities and into different ones.
The motion to recommit requires that, as we make changes to Western
water allocations, we ensure there is enough water in reservoirs,
lakes, and community supplies to make sure that wildfires can be fought
when they occur, which they certainly will. It also ensures that we
honor the existing tribal water rights and protect the health of those
communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and to oppose
the underlying legislation.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to
the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion.
Obviously, if it were a serious one, we could have considered it
anytime in committee or on the floor in the amendment process, but it
is a procedural motion that is also somewhat flawed.
In this particular one, it mentions that nothing will happen until
the Secretary shall ensure that something happens. Unfortunately, in
this provision of the bill, they don't define Secretary, so I am not
really sure which Secretary would have to define something. It could be
the secretary of my office if you really wanted it that way. It
provides that we are going to have water for drinking and for
wildfires.
Now, some of you may remember that, last week, we actually had a
forest bill in here which provided for wildfires. We gave them money;
we gave them authority; we gave them the tools. It passed with a
bipartisan vote, but some of our friends who are not voting for this
one weren't voting for that one either. We solved the wildfire issue
already, scratched that one off.
If you really want drinking water, that is what the base bill does.
The entire purpose of this bill is to emphasize the fact that, in this
drought, we are trying to help people. The goal is to get water to
people so they can work.
In an area that has a 50 percent unemployment rate, they can provide
food for people. It is important to all of us. It is not as important
for me as it used to be, but it is still important for all of us.
We actually provide jobs for people in these areas where they
desperately need that work. We are doing it. This is about people. This
is moving water so people can actually be helped, and that is what the
underlying bill has to do, and the procedural issues that we are trying
to hold up this process, they don't actually help people. They may help
the process, but they don't actually help people.
We need a policy more than the opponents of this bill have, which is:
Let's pray for rain and hope something happens.
We need to do what our pioneer ancestors told us to do and take the
water we have and save it and store it, and that is what the underlying
bill does, not just for California, but for the rest of the West, for
all of us, where we have these same types of situations.
You can vote for the underlying bill, realizing you are helping
people. Good grief, 2008, we found water on Mars; we can actually find
water for people here in the West.
Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit; support the underlying bill.
Let's get this bill going through the system so we can actually do
something good for the people of this country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage of the bill,
if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 446]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
[[Page H5283]]
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--11
Brat
Costello (PA)
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Garrett
Hudson
Larson (CT)
Long
Murphy (FL)
Nolan
Palazzo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1233
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 446, my vote did not register.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 176, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 447]
AYES--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--176
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Costello (PA)
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Gallego
Garrett
Hudson
Larson (CT)
Long
Murphy (FL)
Nolan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1239
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 446 and 447. 446
Recommit--``yes,'' 447. Passage of H.R. 2898--``no.''
[[Page H5284]]
____________________