[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5503-H5533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GAINING RESPONSIBILITY ON WATER ACT OF 2017
general leave
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 23.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 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. 23.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1634
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. 23) to provide drought relief in the State of California, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Perry 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 gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in California, 5 years of historic drought caused
billions of dollars of damage to our economy, destroyed tens of
thousands of jobs, and brought many communities within just months of
literally running out of water, all because we couldn't store water
from the wet years to assure plenty in the drought years.
Then back to back with this historic drought, we have just had one of
the wettest winters on record. Massive torrents of water threatened
entire communities on its way to be wasted in the Pacific Ocean, all
because of the very same problem: we have few reservoirs to store this
superabundance of water for the next drought.
Even before the drought, massive water diversions required by a
growing tangle of laws and regulations had created devastating economic
hardship in California's fertile Central Valley. Those same policies
forced us to release what precious little water we had remaining behind
our dams to adjust river temperatures for fish.
For three Congresses now, the House has acted to fix this folly.
Today, H.R. 23, the GROW Act, by Congressman David Valadao, addresses
the policy, regulatory, and administrative failures that have
mismanaged our water supplies across the West.
The GROW Act includes both short-term and long-term provisions aimed
at restoring water reliability and certainty to cities and farms. It
includes seven titles that expand water storage, improve
infrastructure, protect water rights, and create more abundant and
reliable water resources to benefit both communities and the
environment.
[[Page H5504]]
The GROW Act gives Federal agencies the tools they need to help
safeguard communities from the hardship of future droughts. It codifies
the historic Bay-Delta accord that provided an equitable balance
between human and environmental needs and guaranteed the reliability
and predictability of our water supplies.
It strengthens northern California area-of-origin water rights and
prevents the Federal Government from demanding that people give up
their water rights in order to operate on Federal land.
It streamlines the endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive
environmental permitting that is blocking new reservoir construction by
coordinating Federal agencies and requiring transparency of the science
behind its decisions.
It requires completion of studies for five new reservoirs that have
dragged on for decades.
In the past, we have heard three objections from opponents. The first
is it will decimate salmon fisheries. On the contrary, it saves those
fisheries where the environmental policies of the past 40 years have
utterly failed to protect them.
The GROW Act targets the nonnative predators that are responsible for
90 percent of salmon losses as the smolts try to make their way to the
ocean. It encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure that salmon
populations will increase dramatically in future years.
The second objection is that it will preempt State water rights laws.
Read section 302 of the bill. ``The Secretary of the Interior is
directed, in operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to
California's water rights laws governing water rights priorities . .
.''
It goes on to say that diversions ``shall not be undertaken in a
manner that alters the water rights priorities established by
California law.''
It does have provisions necessary to codify the Bay-Delta agreement
and combat invasive predators, but this doesn't set a precedent for
other States. California is unique among the States in the fact that it
operates with a coordinated operating agreement that combines the
Federal Central Valley Project and the California State water projects
and runs them as a unified system. This was at the request of
California and with its consent.
The third objection is that it rewards powerful agricultural
interests at the expense of consumers. This is nonsense. An average
consumer uses roughly 100 gallons a day to wash the dishes, water the
lawn, everything else we do in our daily lives. But when you purchase a
cheeseburger, you have just consumed 750 gallons of water because that
is what it takes to grow the ingredients in that cheeseburger. Buy a
pair of jeans, you have just used 1,800 gallons of water.
The fact is that all of this water benefits consumers and the tens of
thousands of farm workers and others who provide for their families
from this water.
Droughts are nature's fault. Water shortages are our fault. They are
a choice we made a generation ago when we chose to neglect our
infrastructure and mismanage our water resources. It has led to
increasingly severe water shortages, spiraling utility and grocery
bills, and economic stagnation. The GROW Act chooses a brighter future
of abundance and prosperity that can begin today with our vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, so much for regular order. The bill before us today has
not received a hearing in committee where witnesses could have
testified about its effects. It has not gone through the markup process
so that the committee of jurisdiction could actually debate and offer
amendments to improve it.
Moreover, we are about to vote on a bill with several provisions that
no one has ever seen before last Wednesday, aside from a small group of
Republican offices and special interests that have been working on the
bill.
Now, this closed-door process not only ignores the changing
conditions of drought in California and how the State has already been
adapting to meet water conservation needs, but it also ignores all of
California's water provisions that were included, albeit at the last
minute, in the WIIN Act last year, which is now Federal law.
There has been no discussion, no hearing, no way to know how the
provisions of this bill that overlap with the enacted law will actually
be implemented by the Trump administration. This is legislating blind,
and it is a bad idea.
On some level, I do understand my Republican colleagues' fear of
regular order on this bill. The more sunlight and public scrutiny that
this bill gets, the uglier it looks. Make no mistake, if enacted, this
bill will hurt a lot of people.
This bill takes water away from fishermen, from tribes, the
environment, Delta farmers, and others in order to redistribute it
primarily to a small group of some of the Nation's biggest and most
politically connected agribusiness interests.
My Republican colleagues often talk about States' rights, yet this
bill repeatedly overrides State laws over the objection of that State.
I am talking, of course, about California.
A letter of opposition to H.R. 23 recently came from Governor Jerry
Brown, sent to the speaker of the house in the California Congressional
Delegation attesting to this. Governor Brown writes: ``This bill
overrides California water law, ignoring our State's prerogative to
oversee our waters. Commandeering our laws for purposes defined in
Washington is not right.''
This assault on California law and its values are why both California
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Kamala Harris oppose this bill as
well.
Now, here are just a few examples of the sections in this bill that
preempt State law. Section 108(d) begins with the words ``California
law is preempted'' on page 21, paragraph 3. That section goes on to
remove State protections for certain fisheries.
Section 113 of the bill preempts California law that requires the
restoration of California's second longest river and that river's
native salmon runs.
Section 108 of the bill tells the State of California that it is
barred from managing the State's water in any way that would ``protect,
enhance, or restore . . . any public trust value.'' In other words, the
broader public interest can't be considered by the State when it is
managing the water that belongs to the people of California.
Additionally, this bill eliminates existing fishery protections,
which could put many of California's native fisheries and the thousands
of jobs they support on a path to extinction. That means that this is
more than just a California problem, because fishing communities in
Oregon and Washington also depend on California salmon runs.
There was a recent UC Davis report that found that if present trends
continue, many of California's salmon runs are on a path to extinction
in the decades ahead. This bill would hasten that prediction into
reality.
This is not just an environmental impact. It is a human one as well.
We have heard from fishermen who are struggling to pay their mortgages,
boats are being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes
are being repossessed. We have heard about the struggles of small-
business owners running restaurants, hotels, and other retail and
service businesses. We have also heard from Indian Country, like the
Hoopa Valley Tribe that I represent, and others about the danger that
this bill poses to tribal fisheries, to tribal water, fishing,
property, and other rights.
{time} 1645
Rather than simply picking winners and losers, as this destructive
bill does, Congress should be working together to grow water supplies
for everyone without violating Tribal responsibilities or overriding
State sovereignty. Congress could be supporting a range of modern water
technologies like reuse, desalination, water use efficiency, storm
water capture, and groundwater storage and remediation. These are the
tools that have increased California's water supplies in recent years
and are making our State more drought resilient, but this bill does
none of that.
These are not controversial suggestions working on these modern water
supply tools; in fact, it was the reclamation commissioner for
President George W. Bush who described the water that we could tap
through reuse as the next great river of the American
[[Page H5505]]
West. We should be focusing on those kind of noncontroversial consensus
solutions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Nunes), who has been a leader on this issue for more
than two decades.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding me the
time and for his kind words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to the other side of the
aisle because some things that are said on this floor are so ridiculous
that they don't deserve a response. So I just want to talk today, Mr.
Chairman, about the facts that we face in the San Joaquin Valley.
So in the southern and central San Joaquin Valley, we have about 3
million acres of farm ground, land that is the most fertile farmland in
the world--not just in the United States, in the world. We are in
danger of losing about a third of that farmland largely because the
leftwing government in California has overreached so far that they are
now taking away people's private property rights.
So I want to talk first about our water shortage. So this is the
shortage of water that we have in the valley. So it is about 2.6
million acre feet are what we need on average to farm all of the land
that we have historically farmed in our area.
Now, these are farms that provide food for not only the people of the
United States and all over the world but also for the families that
work on these farms.
So we hear a lot about drought, and we have had supposedly a severe
drought, and it was no question a severe drought, but what the left
continues to not want to talk about is all the water that gets dumped
out into the ocean every year. So just from October of last year to
just a couple days ago, 46 million acre feet of water have gone out to
the ocean. So if you go back to the chart I just had, we are only short
2.6 million acre feet. So of the water that has flown into the delta in
the middle of California, 92 percent of that water has gone out to the
ocean, and it has been wasted.
Now, some on the other side of the aisle, they continually talk about
global warming, and they continually talk about how the oceans are
rising. Well, if you believe the oceans are rising, why would you want
more water to flow out into the ocean? I don't understand that.
So this is about a million acres of farmland that is going to come
out of production if we don't do anything about it. About 1 million
acres over the next decade will begin to come out of production. In
fact, some this year is already out of production because none of the
water was moved early enough so that it could get to farms in time.
So even though we have flooding--so this picture was taken just a
couple days ago--this is water spilling over the top of the dam that is
going to go all the way out into the ocean and be wasted, for an ocean
that supposedly is rising because of global warming. So this is
happening because, as Mr. McClintock said, we are not building water
storage projects.
So what this bill does is it reverts back to what the Founding
Fathers of our State built, mostly Democrats, by the way. It was
Democrats working with the Republicans who built this water system in
California. So if we take the existing water system that we have, we
add to that four or five facilities, like Mr. McClintock is talking
about, all the land gets farmed, all the species get saved, everybody
goes to work.
What you will not hear from the left, and this is very disturbing, I
only picked the least disturbing of all the pictures, but I think it is
important for people here in Washington and all over the United States
to understand this, this is just one family of many of thousands of
families where their homes actually ran out of water. So this picture
is not from Africa, it is not from somewhere in Southeast Asia. This is
a picture from my area, from my district, from the central and southern
San Joaquin Valley. These are people who are out of water.
So the left always talks about wanting to protect people, wanting
people to be able to work, yet we have people with no water in their
homes, and yet they are willing to see 92 percent of the water flush
right out by the Golden Gate Bridge and be wasted for an ocean that
supposedly is filling up.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We often hear about water that flows through the estuary of
California's Bay-Delta system, we hear that sometimes described as
wasted. There are some inconvenient facts that we have to bring up when
that happens, like the fact that almost all of that water that flows
out through the estuary is to prevent salt water intrusion so that the
State and Federal water pumps aren't sending salty water to millions of
Californians. That wouldn't work. In fact, if we shut down all of that
outflow that my colleague just mentioned, that is exactly what you
would see: massive salt water intrusion and a shutdown of the State and
Federal water projects.
There is also incredible value in the water that flows through that
estuary for downstream communities and farmers and senior water right
holders, and others who have depended on it for decades. No one
understands that better than my colleague who represents some of those
communities in the estuary, in the delta, Mike Thompson.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this bill, and I rise on behalf of the fishermen, the landowners, the
delta and north-of-delta farmers, the conservationists, the sportsmen,
coastal communities, the counties in my district, and the water users
across our State that will be harmed by this bill.
This is a disappointing effort to take care of the San Joaquin
Valley's massive agro businesses at the expense of everyone else.
More times than I can count, I have stood on this floor with many of
my colleagues from California to explain that our State's water system
is complicated. It is because there are hundreds of stakeholders. There
are decades of rules, laws, and court cases from every level of
government and industry that regulate the delivery of water to users
across our State.
Once again, this body is proposing to end-run that delicate balance
to benefit one interest. That is wrong.
Once again, we are gutting Federal protections for fish and wildlife
that support our State's $3.5 billion hunting and angling industry and
our $1.5 billion salmon industry.
Once again, we are preempting California laws and regulations,
telling States across America that we are okay with the Federal
Government undermining State and local experts from coast to coast, but
this time they are going further.
This bill isn't just about water anymore. It is about giving
contractors a pass on their obligations to be good stewards of the
resources they are using in the Central Valley of California; it is
about reneging on this body's commitment to the restoration of wildlife
and habitat that have suffered the consequences of water management
plans that already put them last; it is about cutting stakeholders out
of the picture and determining winners and losers in Federal statute;
taking a blunt ax to our State's water system over the objections of
our Governor, both of our Senators, and many of our colleagues in the
House. This is wrong for California.
It won't alleviate water shortages, but it will kill jobs, and it
will ruin drinking water for millions.
We need real solutions that are based on sound science and that work
for everyone. This bill is not that solution. It is bad for
California's economy, bad for our State sovereignty, and bad for our
environment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this legislation.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, the first slide that I wanted to present
here is one that I think is very important when we talk about water
going out into the ocean.
The first bar there, the dark blue one, is how much water was flowing
through the estuary this past year.
The second bar is actually a little bit of an exaggeration. If we
took every
[[Page H5506]]
single reservoir that we propose in this bill, multiplied it by ten--
ten times the amount of storage that we are proposing--we still
wouldn't use all that water. There would still be quite a bit of water
flowing out into the ocean. So multiply every single project times ten,
and we still don't use up all the water.
So there was a lot of water wasted this year alone that we had the
opportunity to capture if this bill had been presented earlier or
passed into law, and we had the opportunity to actually make a
difference.
Why does that make a difference to so many folks? It makes a
difference because the Central Valley is very important to the country.
We feed the Nation. When you look at all the different commodities, and
this is just a small sample, we produce over 400 different commodities,
and a lot of these, a big majority, some of them as much as 99 percent
of the different commodities that go through.
So everyone sitting at home around the country should pay attention,
because this affects their food supply. Even here in the Capitol, when
you make yourself a salad at the salad bar, those salads, all those
different products are produced mostly in the Central Valley, and so
that is why this legislation is so important.
The reason why it is important to my farmers to get this done, even
in a year like this, where we had a 200 percent rainfall, with the
amount of water that was flowing through that was, again, in my
opinion, wasted, they didn't find out until it was too late. Planning
decisions need to be made over at the beginning of this when the rain
is coming down and they know that the water is there, not in March or
in April, because the opportunity has passed.
Farmers are very optimistic people. They put stuff in the ground,
cover it with dirt, and hope that it will grow so they can feed the
world, but having them wait until April to make those decisions to
plant those commodities and create those jobs is just way too late.
Now, this is the one that I think is the most important. This is
Mendota, California. This is a farm worker. This is what happens when
we allow water to flow out into the ocean that is wasted. People are
living in shantytowns. These are people who want to work and people who
want to feed the world, people who want to provide for their own
families, and not wait for a check from the government. They just want
to know when they are getting their water so that they can start to
produce crops and feed the world, but this, because of the policies
through Washington, D.C., is what we end up with.
Now all the folks who represent parts of my community in different
ways, whether it is the water district, city, city councils, county
governments, they have all sent in letters in support.
I include in the Record a list of all the folks who sent in letters
in support of the legislation.
Groups Supporting H.R. 23
Agricultural Retailers Association; ASV Wines; Blue Diamond
Growers; California Cattlemen's Association; California
Citrus Mutual; -California Farm Bureau Federation; California
Fresh Fruit Association; California Poultry Federation;
California Water Alliance; City of Arvin; City of Atwater;
City of Avenal; City of Clovis; City of Coalinga; City of
Corcoran; City of Delano; City of Dinuba; City of Exeter;
City of Farmersville; City of Firebaugh.
City of Fowler; City of Fresno; City of Hanford; City of
Huron; City of Kerman; City of Kingsburg; City of Lemoore;
City of Lindsay; City of McFarland; City of Mendota; City of
Orange Cove; City of Parlier; City of Porterville; City of
Reedley; City of San Joaquin; City of Sanger; City of Selma;
City of Shafter; City of Tulare; City of Visalia; City of
Wasco; City of Woodlake; Coalinga Chamber of Commerce;
Corcoran Chamber of Commerce; Delano Chamber of Commerce.
Fresno Association of Realtors; Fresno Chamber of Commerce;
Fresno County Board of Supervisors; Fresno County Farm
Bureau; Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission; Fresno
State; Friant Water Authority; Giumarra Vineyards; Gravelly
Ford Water District; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce;
Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce; Hanford Chamber of
Commerce; Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District; Kerman
Chamber of Commerce; Kern County Board of Supervisors.
Kern County EDC; Kern County Farm Bureau; Kern County
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Kern County Water Agency; Kern
Ridge Growers, LLC; Kings County Board of Realtors; Kings
County Board of Supervisors; Kings County Farm Bureau; Kings
County Sheriff's Department; Kings River Conservation
District/Water Association; Lakeside Irrigation Water
District; Lemoore Chamber of Commerce; Madera County Farm
Bureau; Merced County Farm Bureau.
Munger Farms; Municipal Water District of Orange County;
National Milk Producers Federation; Nickel Family, LLC;
Premier Valley Realty; San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors; San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure;
Authority; Shafter Chamber of Commerce; South Valley Water
Association.
Sunview Vineyards; Tipton Community Council; Tulare Chamber
of Commerce; Tulare County Association of Governments; Tulare
County Association of Realtors; Tulare County Board of
Supervisors; Tulare County Farm Bureau; Tule River
Association; Western Growers; Westlands Water District
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have good, sound
policy. I think it is time for the Governor and our Senators to play a
role in this as well.
This bill has been passed. We have gotten some things passed, and I
know that my friend across the aisle mentioned that earlier, but even
after the WIIN Act was passed into law, we still had a delay in
decisions made, because our farmers had no clue that they were getting
their water.
So we have to pass legislation like this, this bill right here, and
this is what can be helpful for us in the Central Valley in California
and the Nation as a whole.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 23. Yet, again, it
seems that instead of addressing the issues underlying California's
water supply, some of my colleagues are more interested in fanning the
flames of century-old water disputes.
The city of Sacramento, which I represent, sits at the confluence of
two major rivers, the Sacramento and the American. Because there is no
such thing as an average water year in California, living under the
threat of drought and flood has become a way of life for Sacramento
residents.
We are working with the Army Corps to invest billions of dollars in
flood protection, and we are collaborating with the Bureau of
Reclamation to build a groundwater bank and a water recycling facility
to increase access to drinking water.
Congress should explore real solutions to drought challenges, as the
Sacramento region is doing.
In the short term, we must be efficient about fixing leaks and waste
while also continuing conservation efforts.
In the long-term, we should be taking advantage of new technologies
to monitor our water use and making investments in wastewater cycling
in above- and below-ground water storage.
Last Congress, I introduced a commonsense bill that removed barriers
to wastewater cycling projects, making it possible for them to move
forward more quickly and efficiently with Federal support. It
ultimately became law. Yet instead of debating these types of
solutions, we are wasting time on a bill that does not solve our
underlying water supply problem.
{time} 1700
I grew up on a farm in the Central Valley. My father, my uncles, and
my grandfather were farmers. We raised peaches, plums, nectarines, and
grapes. I recall living and understanding what water means to us, so I
do understand the value and sensitivities about water.
Now, in the Sacramento region, where I now represent, we have tried
to take a balanced approach, working to protect the environment while
providing water for our farms and our cities.
It is misleading to claim that H.R. 23 will solve our drought
problems. This legislation only prioritizes certain regions or
industries instead of taking the comprehensive approach we need.
And by giving the Federal Government power to dictate the best uses
of the State's water, H.R. 23 sets a disastrous precedent for other
States across the country that should raise alarm on both sides of the
aisle.
The bill we are discussing today undermines a State's autonomy.
Ultimately, I am concerned that this bill will weaken environmental
protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, and harm our State's
ability to manage its own water.
That is why I join my district and the State of California in
strongly opposing this bill. We cannot afford to
[[Page H5507]]
give up California's right to control its own water future. We must
focus on an all-of-the-above strategy that puts us on the path to a
sustainable water supply while protecting our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this
legislation.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here today
has to do with the drought in California that, frankly, could have been
solved had we been allowed to move forward with the storage that we
need. Because the process now is one of watching the rains come, watch
the water run out to the ocean, and we do not have the ability to block
the red tape that prevents us from building the storage that would hold
that water so that we can use it during the drought.
What was the consequence of us not being able to address that? And
why is it so important that we pass the GROW Act here that David
Valadao from the Central Valley has introduced?
Well, the consequences were one of having thousands of jobs
disappear. The consequences were having dead crops plowed under in
hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that had been left idle. The
consequences were that billions of dollars were lost in the State. And,
frankly, the State of California produces 400 commodities that are one-
third of the country's vegetables. It is two-thirds of this country's
fruit. It is two-thirds of the nuts produced. The industry brings in
$47 billion. When this happens, the consequences are felt by the
farmers and by the people across California, by those thrown out of
their jobs.
This is an incredibly important industry not only in California, but
for the entire country. So, for years, we haven't gotten the water we
paid for or contracted for.
But not to let us go forward with the additional storage and to put
roadblocks in front of that, to absolutely block commonsense solutions,
this has got to stop. This is why this legislation needs to be made
into law.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, our environmental laws
are not preventing new dams from being built. In fact, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the GAO, and the Congressional Research Service have
looked at this and haven't been able to identify a single--nor my
colleagues across the aisle have been able to identify a single dam
project that somehow was blocked because of environmental laws.
What has been stopping many of them--not all, but many of them--has
been the financing challenge because many of these projects just don't
make a lot of sense. It is important to realize that projects that do
make sense have moved forward. They have secured financing. They
haven't needed special shortcuts from the environmental laws. And they
have happened, projects like Diamond Valley, projects like Los
Vaqueros, probably the coming expansion of Los Vaqueros.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
We, in the San Joaquin Valley, know that where food grows, water
flows. That is not just a saying; that is the truth. It takes water to
grow the food that we rely on to sustain ourselves.
Luckily, this year, we have been blessed with an abundance of rain
and snow on the mountains--a record year. However, it is only because
of the wettest year in California's historical record that the
agricultural heartland of California, a place where half of our
Nation's fruits and vegetables are grown, is, this year, free from
drought.
Only 1 year ago, over 83 percent of California was in a moderate
drought or worse. We know that the next drought is sure to come,
threatening valley families and farm communities. It is either feast or
famine. We measure water on 10-year averages. That is why we need
solutions that solve this long-term challenge.
I commend Congressman Valadao for continuing this effort. As I noted
in a letter I wrote to him in February, though, I have concerns that
this legislation, without some improvements, will fail to be that long-
term solution that the valley and our State so desperately needs. This
solution must be, at the end of the day, multifaceted, must not pick
winners and losers, as California water policies in the past have so
frequently done, to the detriment of both the agricultural economy,
which we have felt, and California's ecosystems. Sadly, some of the
provisions within this legislation, in my opinion, I think fail to meet
this test.
Language within titles 1 and 3 would pose threats to the wetlands of
Grasslands Ecological Area, the largest wetlands west of the
Mississippi, a vital component of the Pacific Flyway, in an area that
contributes nearly $73 million a year alone to Merced County, which I
represent.
Section 106 would drastically cut collections to the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, which pays for refuge water conveyance--that
is very important--and that would transfer oversight of the fund to
other water users. It would also, I think, supersede State laws in some
areas that, frankly, over the experience I have had, in many years,
will create more problems than it solves.
In addition to these concerns, I know from having worked on water
solutions for over 30 years that both here and in Sacramento, the only
path to legislative success is through bipartisan, bicameral action, as
we experienced in December with the passage of the WIIN Act that, by
the way, authorized four reservoirs that was contained in the WIIN Act
that Senator Feinstein and I and Republicans in the House worked on
together in a very constructive way.
So, as always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues in both the
House and the Senate on a bipartisan basis to improve this legislation
and get solutions to fix California's broken water system to the
President's desk.
I support moving this legislation forward to the Senate. But let's be
clear, this is a work in progress, and much more work remains for this
legislation, I think, to be successful.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the dean of the Republican
delegation to the House.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Last winter, two miracles occurred 3,000 miles apart. Here in
Washington, our Nation's Capital, Republicans and Democrats came
together and passed a significant water bill that was signed into law.
Back in California, we saw massive amounts of rainfall that came down
in our drought-stricken State, quickly filling our depleted reservoirs.
But I think we can actually take another big step forward by passing
H.R. 23, the GROW Act. This bill before us provides even more long-term
water solutions for California by expediting the consideration of
feasibility studies for water storage projects that have languished for
periods of time that are longer than it took to actually build the
Hoover Dam. The GROW Act also includes provisions that are critical to
the Bay-Delta operations and help improve water reliability.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, you heard a lot of doomsday predictions from
certain groups that said the language we passed would push threatened
species towards extinction. That did not happen. Today you hear a lot
of the same talk. But solutions to H.R. 23 are common sense and will
bring reliability to the water supply of California.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we see this bill every Congress. That is, every 2 years
we fight this thing out.
Let's talk about what it would do. It would weaken the Endangered
Species Act--that has been a target of the Republican Party for
decades. It will benefit one region while harming another. It will make
a few people very wealthy. It will likely cause additional drainage
problems for the Westlands and other water districts. It will cause
ocean salt water to come farther inland in the California delta,
poisoning farmland, destroying marinas, disrupting water supplies for
cities along the delta, basically destroying the delta as we now know
it. It will use precious limited water to plant evermore thirsty
orchards in the desert. And it may expedite the creation of new dams
with weakened environmental control.
[[Page H5508]]
So let's look at what it won't do. It won't create any new water.
So why do we have to go through this every 2 years?
It is good political theater for some colleagues, but it is not going
to get through the Senate.
But all may not be lost. Here is a novel suggestion: work across
party lines, work across northern versus southern California lines, and
come to a compromise that will actually create new water and take all
stakeholder interests into account.
We need to take a holistic approach.
It means actually funding recycling and above- and below-ground water
storage that makes environmental sense. It means capturing stormwater,
early leak detection, data collection, efficiency, and conservation. It
is all of these things, all of which can be done in a cost-effective
way that prepares us for the long-term.
There are countless recharge, recycling, desalinization projects, as
well as other storage projects that are ready to go and could create or
save enough water for thousands of families in California.
Instead of considering a bill that wastes water and that California
opposes, we should be discussing how to most efficiently utilize the
rain and snowpack we have, which can be done while protecting the
environment.
Let's oppose this bill and start working on legislation that can be
signed into law and benefit everyone.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of the bipartisan Western Caucus.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 23,
legislation sponsored by my good friend and Western Caucus member,
David Valadao.
For years, Western communities have suffered as a result of frivolous
lawsuits, inefficient policies, and burdensome regulations that have
prevented adoption of commonsense water solutions. These factors,
coupled with a lack of rainfall, exacerbated a manmade drought that
lasted for 5 years.
Rather than capturing precious water supplies, failed government
policies that refused to put Americans first allowed billions of
gallons to be funneled into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean.
These deliberate diversions killed thousands of jobs, harmed our
country's food supply, and led to local unemployment levels as high as
40 percent.
Today we have an opportunity to right these wrongs by passing the
GROW Act, legislation that is supported by approximately 100 different
cities, agriculture groups, water associations, irrigation districts,
local chambers of commerce, and businesses throughout the country.
Most of the major provisions in this bill have been passed by this
body numerous times. In fact, we have been working to enact similar
legislation for nearly 5 years.
For example, title V includes Western Caucus member Tom McClintock's
Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, an excellent bill that will
streamline the permitting process for important water storage projects.
Title VI includes Western Caucus member Dan Newhouse's Bureau of
Reclamation Water Project Streamlining Act, much-needed legislation
that will result in increased storage of surface water.
Title VII includes Western Caucus Vice Chairman Tipton's Water Rights
Protection Act, an essential bill that protects private water rights
from Federal takings.
I strongly support these titles and the underlying bill. It is far
past time that we put our communities, families, and America first.
H.R. 23 addresses previous policy failures and adopts worthwhile
water policies that will benefit future generations.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for sponsoring
this much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
support of this commonsense bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly respond to my friend's
reference to a manmade drought.
What California just went through is what hydrologists, scientists,
and historians tell us is the most significant drought the State has
ever experienced--a natural one. I certainly knew that human activities
were impacting the climate, but, wow, if human beings could actually
cause the snowpack to be 5 percent of normal and cause a drought like
that, that is taking human-induced climate change to a whole new level.
We have got to be careful in this debate. We are beginning to give
hyperbole a bad name.
{time} 1715
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi), representing the Sacramento Valley.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we have a serious case of legislative
amnesia here. Apparently, the sponsors of this bill and those who are
speaking in support of it have totally forgotten what we did last year.
The WIIN Act last year addressed every single problem that has been
presented here this afternoon: new reservoirs, four were authorized in
the WIIN Act, which became law less than a year ago--7 months, to be
exact; all of the issues of the outflows of water to the delta were
addressed so that additional export of water from the delta could
occur.
I am wondering: What are we doing here with this piece of
legislation, aside from totally eviscerating the protections for the
largest estuary on the West Coast, of the Western Hemisphere? The
environmental protections are eviscerated.
What are we doing with this legislation besides--oh, you wanted to
talk about private water rights? Those private water rights are set in
place by the laws of the State of California, which are overridden by
this piece of legislation.
Yes, that is true. This legislation removes the water rights that the
State of California has given to individuals as well as irrigation
districts, but they are stripped away.
What is this all about?
Last year, a 2-year effort was completed and the WIIN Act was passed
by this Congress, signed into law. It is in existence. Reservoirs can
be built. Water conservation will take place. All of the things that we
need to do are in place today.
So why are we fighting this fight? Because we don't know how to stop
fighting? Because we don't know how to actually implement a law that we
passed last year?
And, by the way, where is the funding for all you want to do here?
There is no money in this. You want to do these things. You want water;
you want reservoirs--put up the money. Don't just sit here and
regurgitate what we have done for the last 5 years and totally ignore
the progress that was made with the WIIN legislation.
We ought not do this. I am opposed to this, and, hopefully, we will
find some sensible action.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to address title
VII of the Water Rights Protection Act in this bill.
Over many decades, Federal attempts to manipulate Federal permit,
lease, and land management process to circumvent long-established State
water law and hijack privately held water rights have sounded the alarm
for all non-Federal water users that rely on these water rights for
their livelihood.
The Federal Government's overreach and infringement on private
property rights that led to the introduction of this original bill in
the 113th Congress involved the U.S. Forest Service's attempt to
require the transfer of privately held water rights to the Federal
Government as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. With
this permit condition, there is no compensation for the transfer of
these privately held rights.
This Forest Service permit condition has already hurt a number of
stakeholders in my home State of Colorado, including Powderhorn Ski
Area in Grand Junction and the Breckenridge Ski Resort. The same
nefarious tactic has been used in Utah, Nevada, and other Western
States, where agencies have required the surrender of possession of
water rights in exchange for approving the conditional use of grazing
allotments. This Federal water grab has broad implications that have
begun to extend beyond the recreation and the farming and ranching
community and are now threatening municipalities and other businesses.
[[Page H5509]]
In 2014, the Forest Service proposed a groundwater directive that
would have expanded the agency's reach over groundwater and established
new bureaucratic hurdles to interfere with private water users' ability
to be able to access their water. Though the Forest Service ultimately
withdrew this controversial groundwater directive, there are no
guarantees that the directive or something similar won't be back in the
future.
The Water Rights Protection Act offers a sensible approach that
preserves water rights and the ability to be able to develop water
requisite to living in the arid West without interfering with water
allocations for non-Federal parties or allocations that protect an
environment that is cherished by all Westerners.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from other
Western States to ensure that no State-recognized water right goes
unprotected from the class of actions that this bill prohibits.
I appreciate the inclusion of this legislation and encourage its
passage.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bera), my colleague from the Sacramento area.
Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Today, we are debating a
bill that many of my California colleagues and I have opposed time and
time again on this House floor.
This bill allows Washington, D.C., politicians to pick winners and
losers when it comes to California's water. Now, that is not right.
This is a partisan bill that is opposed by both California Senators as
well as our Governor.
Now, California water is complicated. It is a lot more complicated
than healthcare. But it should be up to Californians to kind of decide
how to use our water, what we ought to do with that water.
Water is incredibly critical to our State. This isn't about picking
winners and losers. When we think about water, we have certainly got to
have storage, we certainly know we are going to have conveyance, but we
have got to do this in a California way.
Unfortunately, H.R. 23 is going to pit northern California against
southern California while overriding California's own State laws. The
bill is also going to gut environmental protections and threaten the
critical Bay-Delta ecosystem.
I fish on the Sacramento River, and salmon fishing is incredibly
important to the State of California as well as the States to the north
of us. This bill is not going to be a good bill. It is going to
devastate the fishing industry.
We also have to think about drinking water for northern California.
Folsom Dam is in my district and Folsom Lake is in my district. It
provides not only flood protection, but Folsom Lake provides surface
drinking water for a lot of my constituents. We tried to put a simple
amendment in here that would actually protect the quality of that
drinking water. Unfortunately, H.R. 23 would mandate pumping levels
that could negatively impact the Folsom Reservoir water supply. That is
going to place many of my constituents at risk.
This isn't a good bill. Let's kill this bill. Let's step back. Let
Californians decide the best way to handle California water. That is
what we ought to do.
Again, this bill is dramatic overreach. It is the Federal Government
stepping into something that the State should actually decide. I hope
my colleagues will join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 23.
Today we have seen pictures, horrible pictures of some of the best
agricultural land in the world that has been totally destroyed by the
policies of people who are now claiming that they like the environment
too much and that that should have, perhaps, something more to do with
their decisionmaking than what benefits people. Well, what happened is
we have turned one of the most productive food-producing areas of the
world into a catastrophe, a desert that produces nothing.
And who has been in charge of this? Who has been in charge of seeing
this total destruction of what could be a garden for the people of the
world? It has been, yes, the Obama administration appointees for the
last year and, yes, in California, where we have had a leftwing liberal
Democratic administration appointing radical environmentalists the same
way Obama appointed radical environmentalists to determine policy.
And what does that mean to us? It means there is less food being
produced. It means we have turned productive land into a horrible
desert that even animals can't exist upon.
No, it makes a lot of sense right now. What makes sense is that now
we have gone through this drought and seen this destruction that didn't
need to happen. What we need to do is build dams. What we need to do is
to make sure that the water that we now have is being stored properly
so that the people of our State don't suffer, so that wealth that can
be grown from the land in central California, which used to be the
world's breadbasket, that that wealth doesn't just disappear from the
face of the planet.
No, you can't really love nature unless you also love people, and
right now the people of California deserve to have some planning done
about storing water when we have it rather than suffering and having
this type of destruction during our droughts.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Responding briefly to a bit of hyperbole just now that somehow
environmental laws have created a ``desert that produces nothing in
California,'' we do need to remember the facts.
The truth is, even through this historic drought, farm employment
rose statewide each year during the drought. The agricultural economy
is thriving, and, thankfully, this year, even the most junior Federal
contractors are enjoying a 100 percent allocation. They are fully
realizing the vision of being the breadbasket of this country and the
world. It is hardly a desert that produces nothing.
With that, I do need to contrast what has been happening on the other
end of the system, many of the communities I represent, where fishing
communities really do have nothing.
The California salmon season this year will be little or nothing. The
Yurok Tribe that I represent that is dependent on fisheries, salmon
fisheries in California since long before there was agriculture, will,
for the second year in a row, close its Tribal fishery. We are seeing
folks selling their boats. We are seeing fishing communities impacted
in dramatic ways. There is real genuine hardship, much like what was
just described by my friend. So the facts do matter.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Bakersfield, California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his work when it comes to water in California.
Mr. Chairman, water is not optional, not in my district, not in
California, not anywhere. But over the past 5 years, my constituents
have struggled to survive without life-giving water in the face of a
catastrophic drought.
This past winter, heavy rains and snowfall have brought much-needed
relief. In fact, there was so much water this past winter we ran out of
room to store it.
But we cannot always expect a year to bring monsoon-level rains and
record snow. What happens if next year's rain and snowfall is average,
or below average, or we have another drought? The Federal and State
regulations that keep us from pumping and storing water will come back
to haunt us.
The water bill passed by this body and signed into law last year was
a downpayment on California's future. Today's legislation is another
major investment in our State's future.
So let's look at pumping. There is no reason--absolutely no reason--
we should prioritize potential benefit to fish over real benefits to
families. This legislation increases delta pumping and will bring
immediate relief to two-thirds of California south of the delta.
But a long-term solution demands more pumping. While California's
population has doubled since the 1970s, we
[[Page H5510]]
haven't completed a single major storage project in that time.
Now, that is worth restating. While California's population has
doubled since the 1970s, we have not completed a single major storage
project in that time. How can California grow and thrive in the future
if we depend on inadequate infrastructure from nearly 50 years ago?
Currently, five reservoir projects have been stalled in regulatory
and red tape for decades. If these reservoirs alone are built, we could
store between 1 to 1.5 million acre-feet of additional water in our
State. So we need to build more storage as soon as possible.
Last year's water bill jumpstarted the process for building new
reservoirs in California and the West. It was a bipartisan bill, with
the vote being hundreds of votes out of the House, more than 70 in the
Senate.
Today's legislation builds on that by requiring the Federal
Government to finally finish the feasibility studies for the five
storage projects in California. Then we reform the permitting process
so other projects aren't held up for years trying to get approval from
a dozen different agencies.
So I want to thank Congressman David Valadao for his hard work, his
persistence on this issue. Ultimately, American citizens haven't gotten
the water they need because their government was failing them. Last
year's bill was the start to change all that. Today, we take another
major step to bring our communities the water they contract and pay
for.
{time} 1730
Now, Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear a lot of people on this side
of the aisle talk about the need from California. Unfortunately, on the
other side of the aisle, it looks like you will just hear from one.
That should show you the need and desire of why this bill is so
important.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is causing the fact checking machines to
melt down, unfortunately. We just heard that there hasn't been a single
major storage project in California since the 1970s. That is going to
come as shocking news to the folks of the Metropolitan Water District
which completed a huge storage project, Diamond Valley, during that
period. It will certainly surprise the folks in Contra Costa, which
completed Los Vaqueros without any special environmental shortcuts and
with their own financing for the most part. It will surprise local
water districts around the State, including my own Marin Municipal
Water District, which completed two dam expansion projects in that same
timeframe. It will surprise the folks at the current and semitropic
groundwater banks that expanded significantly groundwater storage
during that timeframe.
In fact, the truth is, California has added nearly 6 million acre
feet of new storage, surface and groundwater storage, over the past few
decades in this timeframe we have been talking about. So facts really
do matter.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 23, the GROW Act, which makes important and necessary
regulatory reforms to allow for better management of water resources
throughout the West.
My home State of California recently suffered its worst drought on
record, which significantly affected the entire State. Families,
communities, workers, and businesses all made significant sacrifices to
conserve water and mitigate the drought's impact.
I applaud the water agencies and residents in my home district of
Orange County for taking the necessary steps to adapt to the severe
drought conditions. While substantial rainfall this winter effectively
ended California's drought, the recent crisis was not just from a lack
of rain. It is also the result of failed State and Federal policies
that have mismanaged critical water resources throughout the West.
The GROW Act is a crucial step toward addressing these failed
policies. H.R. 23 will help California recover from this devastating
drought and ensure the State is better equipped to handle future water
deficiencies.
In addition to addressing water delivery and water rights issues, the
bill also facilitates the development of new water storage projects,
which is a key water management tool for southern California water
agencies. These projects are critical to a number of California
communities, like Orange County, that lack the access to water even
during nondrought conditions. The GROW Act removes regulatory barriers
from streamlining the permitting and approval process for new
infrastructure projects.
Under current law, new water storage construction projects require
approval from a number of Federal, State, and local agencies. This bill
provides for a consolidated permitting process that would require
Federal agencies to conduct coordinated reviews of non-Federal storage
projects.
The GROW Act will also expedite feasibility studies for much-needed
Federal storage projects, some of which have been unnecessarily delayed
for years.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Knight).
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 23, the
Gaining Responsibility on Water Act, or GROW Act, which I am a proud
cosponsor.
This bill takes an important step in protecting the water security of
Californians and the food supply integrity of the United States.
As all of my colleagues from California know, the recent Western
drought nearly crippled our State's agriculture industry and
compromised the standard of living for all our constituents by raising
prices at the grocery stores throughout the country. Mr. Chairman,
while we can't control the weather, we can take steps to mitigate its
potentially harmful effects.
I always like it when people say: Can we just scrap the bill? Or can
we start over? Or can we work together on that?
That is just code for: please stop talking about water; please stop
bringing issues to the floor where we can fix something. And that is
what we hear today quite frequently.
One of the most baffling facets of this story is the fact that there
were readily available water sources that could have been utilized but
were held up by outdated regulations and red tape. Although we have
received some relief from the drought this year, it would be a disgrace
for us as lawmakers not to learn from this ordeal.
Mr. Chairman, we are blessed to live in the most developed Nation in
the world where Americans only notice the absence of basic necessities,
as opposed to other nations where people are found wanting of them.
Unfortunately, due to the misguided policies of the past, that is the
situation so many families and businesses find themselves in.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend Mr. Valadao for his continued
leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 23.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to fact check the fact checker.
The last major reservoir of over a million acre feet was in 1979. It
was in New Melones, 2.3 million acre feet. The two reservoirs that the
gentleman referenced combined are less than a million acre feet. They
would fill New Melones to less than half of that amount.
With respect to water salinity, the Bay-Delta Accord, that is
codified by this bill, guarantees the water necessary to combat salt
water intrusion.
And finally, I would point out that, no, dams don't create water.
Nature creates water. Dams store that water from wet years so that we
have plenty of it in dry years. That is where we have fallen a
generation behind in our needs precisely because of the laws that the
gentleman from California doggedly defends.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the redefinition of ``major water
storage
[[Page H5511]]
projects.'' It is not a definition that I think is recognized anywhere
else other than just now on this floor, but I appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, there are many problems with this bill, and I do want to
urge my colleagues to oppose it. I can't keep track of the number of
times the State of California has come up in our debate here these last
several minutes. So let's look to the State of California and see what
the State of California says about this bill.
The Governor of the State of California opposes it in a hard-hitting
letter that went out to the California delegation and others just a few
days ago. The new attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, wrote
an equally critical letter opposing this bill. Both U.S. Senators from
California oppose this bill.
It is going nowhere in the Senate and will not become law because of
fundamental flaws that have been brought up each of the past several
years that this bill has been introduced in this Congress.
It overrides California State sovereignty and State water laws in
ways that are unacceptable to the people of California and to the
government of California. So when we keep bringing up California, let's
just be very clear that California doesn't want this bill. California
opposes this bill.
Now, I represent the downstream end of some of these water systems
that we are talking about. When we talk about people and fish and jobs,
it is important to remember that fishing jobs matter, too. In the
communities that I represent, and also communities throughout Oregon
and Washington that depend on California salmon runs, they are hurting.
This summer we are going to probably see a closure, for all intents
and purposes, of the commercial salmon season. We are certainly going
to see a closure of the Yurok Tribal Salmon Fishery for the second year
in a row. That is not only economically devastating to Tribal
communities that I represent, it has an emotional impact as well. These
are communities that are hurting. In fact, the Yurok are reporting
suicide rates among young people that are alarmingly high. The closure
of this sacred fishery that is their grocery store, that is a sacred
part of their existence, is certainly not going to help, and I think
could very well contribute to the very severe problems that they are
experiencing.
Fishing jobs matter, the environment matters, downstream communities
that depend on this water that would be redistributed and reallocated
by Congress through this short-sighted bill, that all matters, too.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this wrong-headed bill,
and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do what we have been
inviting them to do each of the past several years, and that is to
reach across the aisle on bipartisan, commonsense water solutions.
There is a lot that we could do together. Many of my colleagues served
with me in the California State legislature. They know, because we did
it together, that there is a different way. There is a better way.
We were able to pass landmark, bipartisan water legislation during
our time together in Sacramento, and we did it because we didn't try to
pick winners and losers. We found all sorts of low-hanging fruit and
consensus solutions, and we came up with something that was supported
across party lines, and in every region of the State. We can do that
here, too, but we won't do it through this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Abundance or shortage, that is the question. And I want to thank and
salute Mr. Valadao for his work on this issue and for putting that
choice so clearly before the House today.
It is true, we can choose to continue down this sad road that we have
been on. That means increasingly severe government-induced shortages.
It means higher and higher water and grocery 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 bleak and parched
homes.
With this bill, we choose a different future. We choose abundance. We
choose a future in which water flows again to the fertile fields of the
Central Valley, providing full employment for families and affordable
groceries from America's agricultural cornucopia. It is a future in
which families need not watch their gardens shrivel and die, and towns
and cities need not fear mandatory water rationing and uncertain and
unpredictable supplies.
It is a future in which long-established water rights are safe and
secure from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. We choose a
future in which thriving populations of young salmon can swim to the
sea unmolested by the non-native predators that now kill 90 percent of
them before they reach the ocean; a future in which new fish hatcheries
assure the release of millions of additional salmon to supply a revived
and rapidly expanding commercial fishing industry.
We choose a future in which great new reservoirs can store vast
amounts of water in wet years to assure abundance in dry ones; a future
in which families can enjoy the prosperity that abundant water and
hydroelectricity and affordable groceries provide, and the quality of
life that comes from that prosperity. Abundance or shortage? That is
the question. We choose abundance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 23 because
it upends decades of State and federal water law and needlessly pits
water users against one another. On the heels of the worst drought in
California's history, this bill mandates that certain interests come
out ahead of others.
California has just recently emerged from six years of a punishing
drought that forced every resident to conserve water, caused millions
of acres of agricultural land to be fallowed, and dramatically
increased our State's risk of major wildfires. The drought was a
massive disaster and Congress should respond by investing in long-term
resilience against future droughts such as water conservation,
recycling, groundwater recharge, and desalination. What Congress should
not be doing is using the drought as an excuse to permanently upend a
century of water law and countless protections for threatened and
endangered wildlife.
H.R. 23 weakens or overrides decades of State and federal law,
including the State and federal Endangered Species Acts; the National
Environmental Policy Act; the Central Valley Project Improvement 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. The GROW Act unwinds that history
entirely.
By discarding a century of water law and species protections, this
bill will decimate the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem, drive the
Delta smelt to extinction, and accelerate the decline of the wild
salmon and steelhead runs which have been an important part of the
Northern California economy since the mid-19th century.
This irresponsible bill also overrides 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 join me in voting no.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hill). All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
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 115-24. 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. 23
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Gaining Responsibility on
Water Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
[[Page H5512]]
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Regulatory streamlining.
Sec. 111. Additional emergency consultation.
Sec. 112. Applicants.
Sec. 113. San Joaquin River settlement.
TITLE II--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Sec. 201. Studies.
Sec. 202. Temperance Flat.
Sec. 203. Water storage project construction.
TITLE III--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
Sec. 301. Offset for State Water Project.
Sec. 302. Area of origin protections.
Sec. 303. No redirected adverse impacts.
Sec. 304. Allocations for Sacramento Valley contractors.
Sec. 305. Effect on existing obligations.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 401. Water supply accounting.
Sec. 402. Operations of the Trinity River Division.
Sec. 403. Report on results of water usage.
Sec. 404. Klamath project consultation applicants.
Sec. 405. CA State Water Resources Control Board.
TITLE V--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Establishment of lead agency and cooperating agencies.
Sec. 504. Bureau responsibilities.
Sec. 505. Cooperating agency responsibilities.
Sec. 506. Funding to process permits.
TITLE VI--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Acceleration of studies.
Sec. 604. Expedited completion of reports.
Sec. 605. Project acceleration.
Sec. 606. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 607. Applicability of WIIN Act.
TITLE VII--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Treatment of water rights.
Sec. 704. Policy development.
Sec. 705. Effect.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
SEC. 101. 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 part 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. 102. 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 flows' means water flows capable
of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive
uses of water and economic, environmental, and social
factors.''.
SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.
Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING
AND CONTRACT REFORM'' and inserting ``CONTRACTS''; and
(2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon
request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any
existing long-term repayment or water service contract that
provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley
Project for a period of 40 years.
``(b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly
provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or
water service contract for the delivery of water from the
Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the
Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
``(c) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed
pursuant to this section shall include a provision that
requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such
contract only for water actually delivered by the
Secretary.''.
SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND
CONSERVATION.
Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the
following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions
to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley
Project water in accordance with this Act or any other
provision of Federal reclamation law and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and
inserting ``or combination'';
(C) in paragraph (2), 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 such proposal. If such district or
agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is
incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall
state with specificity what must be added to or revised in
order for such proposal to be complete.
``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary
shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a
proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which
the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority
under State law to approve or condition a proposed
transfer.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal
reclamation law--
``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or
banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley
Project water that could have been conducted before October
30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or
arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned
by this title; and
``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the
authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central
Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30,
1992.''.
(2) In subsection (b)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Metering'' and inserting
``Measurement''; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The contracting district or agency, not including
contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate
governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned
water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface
water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point
the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
(3) By striking subsection (d).
(4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
(5) By amending subsection (e) (as redesignated by
paragraph (4))--
(A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment''
and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
(B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates
applicable to''; and
(C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by
the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices
established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.
SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.
Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and
inserting ``may'';
(ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to
provide'';
(iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and
inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
(iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting
``Reasonable instream flow'';
(v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries
Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service'';
and
(vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game''
and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting
``purposes'';
(ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional
obligations''; and
(iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All
Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified
in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of
Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this
paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of
such water would affect the delivery capability of the
Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period
after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational
requirements 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, have been met. To the fullest
extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central
Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this
paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's
remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley
Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial
purposes.''; and
(C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central
Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water
service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the
Central Valley Project is below 75 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.''.
(2) By adding at the end the following:
``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities
described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to
have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and
enhancement purposes of this title.''.
SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as
follows:
[[Page H5513]]
(1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is
hereby''.
(2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that
follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
(3) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or
indirectly require a donation or other payment to the
Restoration Fund--
``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not
otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation
laws; or
``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-293; 96 Stat.
1270); or
``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent
of groundwater recharge.''.
(b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
(2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
(3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all
activities described in this title.''.
(c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration
Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October
1, 2016, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project
power sold to power contractors (October 2016 price levels)''
after ``$12 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for
municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the
Central Valley Project''.
(d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by
inserting ``no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That
upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat
mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section
3406 of this title,''.
(e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each
fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Restoration Fund Advisory 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. Such
plan shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each
expenditure.
``(h) Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members
selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of
whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The
members shall be selected so as to represent the various
Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be
from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and
industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two
at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the
Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to
act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as
follows:
``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and
spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant
to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by
the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent
judgment of the Advisory Board.
``(C) Not later than December 31, 2018, and annually
thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress
recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Not later than December 31, 2018, and biennially
thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the
progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section
3406.
``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate
agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and
services of any Federal agency.''.
SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of
Water.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this
title with any Federal agency, California water user or water
agency, State agency, or private organization for the
exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of
nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish
and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public
Law 99-546 (100 Stat. 3051).
``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary
shall use the authority granted by this subsection in
connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project
facilities for any beneficial purpose.
``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to
exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs
incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial
purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to
a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such
purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other
payment to the Restoration Fund.
``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and
implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central
Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting
``Natural Resources'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan
required by subsection (j)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and
adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the
committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the
Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
(c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as
follows:
(1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as
subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
(2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if
any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to
minimize adverse effects upon''.
(3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that
follows through ``submit to the Congress, a'' and inserting
``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later
than September 30, 2018, shall submit to Congress a''.
(4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through
``options:'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible
but not later than September 30, 2017 (except for the
construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by
that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by
the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife
purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the
purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying
contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection
shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing
arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures
needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of
this subsection and a description of how the Secretary
intends to use the following options--''.
(5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of
new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
(6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
(7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all
that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``; and''.
(8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
(9) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall
implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on
October 1, 2017. In order to carry out this subsection, the
Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in
implementing measures for the long-term resolution of
problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary.
``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30,
2018, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase
the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project
by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory
action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the
plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability
of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
(d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary,
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 these projects. No additional Federal
funds are authorized for the activities authorized in
sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and
103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361. However, each water
storage project under sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i),
103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361
is authorized for construction if non-Federal funds are used
for financing and constructing the project.
SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.
(a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley
Project and California State Water Project Operations.--The
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project shall be
operated pursuant to the water quality standards and
operational constraints described in the ``Principles for
Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of
California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15,
1994, and such operations shall proceed without regard to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or
any other law pertaining to the operation of the Central
Valley Project and the California State Water Project.
Implementation of this section shall be in strict conformance
with the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta
Standards Between the State of California and the Federal
Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
[[Page H5514]]
(b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal
department nor the State of California, including any agency
or board of the State of California, shall impose on any
water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-
1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts the
exercise of that water right in order to conserve, enhance,
recover or otherwise protect any species that is affected by
operations of the Central Valley Project or California State
Water Project. Nor shall the State of California, including
any agency or board of the State of California, restrict the
exercise of any water right obtained pursuant to State law,
including a pre-1914 appropriative right, in order to
protect, enhance, or restore under the Public Trust Doctrine
any public trust value. Implementation of the ``Principles
for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of
California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15,
1994, shall be in strict compliance with the water rights
priority system and statutory protections for areas of
origin.
(c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of
this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any
Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
(d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted
with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of
nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more
native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Rivers Delta.
SEC. 109. 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 fish species present in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries
and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce
after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.
SEC. 110. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.
(a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of
Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project,
including the issuance of a permit under State law, related
to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
(b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation
shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal
action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or
the delivery of water therefrom pending completion of
judicial review of any determination made under the National
Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) CVP.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley
Project.
(2) Project.--The term ``project''--
(A) means an activity that--
(i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public
agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public
agency;
(ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the
environment; and
(iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by
governmental agencies;
(B) may include construction activities, clearing or
grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and
activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit;
or
(C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality
Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.
SEC. 111. ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY CONSULTATION.
For adjustments to operating criteria other than under
section 108 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.
SEC. 112. 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. 113. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
(a) Purpose and Findings.--
(1) Purpose and findings.--Section 10002 of the San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 10002. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this part is to authorize
implementation of the Settlement.
``(b) Findings.--Congress finds that since the date of the
enactment of this Act, the following conditions now persist
with regard to implementation of the Settlement:
``(1) Millions of dollars of economic damages have occurred
due to seepage from rivers flows and other impacts to third
parties affected by the Settlement and San Joaquin River
Restoration Program and such impacts will continue for the
duration of the Settlement and Restoration Program
implementation.
``(2) Estimated costs of implementing the Settlement have
more than doubled from the initial estimates for implementing
the Settlement, from a high-end estimate of $800,000,000 to
more than $1,700,000,000, due to unrealistic initial cost
estimates, additional, unanticipated cost increases related
to damages to land from seepage and to infrastructure from
subsidence, and from increased construction costs to complete
channel improvements, and other improvements not originally
identified, but anticipated in the Settlement as necessary to
implement the Restoration Goal.
``(3) Achievement of the Settlement's Water Management
Goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to Friant
Division long-term contractors, including the Friant-Kern
Canal and Madera Canal capacity restoration projects have not
progressed and are likely impossible given available and
likely future funding and regulatory constraints.
``(4) Implementation of the Settlement's Restoration Goal
has already fallen short of the schedule agreed to by the
Settling Parties and Congress, which required the
reintroduction of Spring-run and Fall-run Chinook salmon in
the river by December 31, 2012, and the majority of Paragraph
11 improvements construction to be complete by December 31,
2013, with the remainder of the paragraph (11) improvements
to be completed by December 31, 2016, neither of which
deadlines have been met and the Secretary has now made
findings that such improvements will not be completed until
2030 at the earliest and likely beyond that timeframe, which
schedule assumes full funding of the Restoration Program,
which has not occurred.
``(5) Catastrophic species declines in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and other changed conditions have affected the
Friant Division's water supply in ways unimagined during the
time of the Settlement's signing, resulting in additional
reductions in water supply for the Friant Division beyond
what was agreed to in the Settlement.
``(6) Recent scientific assessments of likely future
climate change suggest that no amount of additional flow in
the San Joaquin River will sustain Spring-run Chinook salmon,
one of the target species for maintaining a self-sustaining
population below Friant Dam.
``(7) In consideration of existing conditions, it is not
reasonable, prudent and feasible to implement the Settlement
as originally authorized.''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) The term `Exchange Contractors' means San Joaquin
River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, whose members are
the Central California Irrigation District, Columbia Canal
Company, the Firebaugh Canal Water District, and the San Luis
Canal Company.
``(5) The term `Governor' means the Governor of the State
of California.
``(6) The term `Gravelly Ford' means the Gravelly Ford
gaging station in the San Joaquin River located at
approximately River Mile 230.
``(7) The term `Restoration Area' means the San Joaquin
River between Friant Dam and the Merced River confluence, and
generally within 1,500 feet of the centerline of the river.
``(8) The term `Restoration Flow' means the hydrograph
flows (as provided in paragraph 18 and exhibit B of the
Settlement), buffer flows of up to 10 percent of the
applicable hydrograph flows, and any additional water
acquired by the Secretary of the Interior from willing
sellers to meet the Restoration Goal of the Settlement.
``(9) The term `Restoration Fund' means that fund
established by this part.
``(10) The term `Sack Dam' means a low-head earth and
concrete structure with wooden flap gates that diverts San
Joaquin River flows into the Arroyo Canal at approximately
River Mile 182.1.
``(11) The term `Warm Water Fishery' means a water system
that has an environment suitable for species of fish other
than salmon (including any subspecies) and trout (including
all subspecies).
``(12) The term `third party' means the Exchange
Contractors or any member thereof, current or former members
of the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, and current or
former members of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water
Authority.''; and
(3) Implementation of settlement.--Section 10004 of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11)
is amended--
(A) in subsection (f), by striking ``pursuant to the
Settlement and section 10011'' and inserting ``or other
species for any reason'';
(B) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or the implementation
of the Settlement and the reintroduction of California
Central Valley Spring Run Chinook salmon or any other
species,'' after ``nothing in this part'';
(C) in subsection (h)--
(i) in the header by striking ``Interim'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)--
(I) by striking ``Interim Flows'' and inserting ``Flows''
each place it appears;
(II) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting ``which shall be
implemented'' after ``significant''; and
(III) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``as a result of the
Interim Flows'' and inserting ``or State laws as a result of
Flows.''; and
(iii) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and
inserting the following:
[[Page H5515]]
``(2) Conditions for release.--The Secretary is authorized
to release Flows--
``(A) if all improvements and mitigation measures are
completed or implemented, including all actions necessary to
mitigate impacts on landowners, water agencies, and water
users; and
``(B) if such Flows will not exceed existing downstream
channel capacities.
``(3) Seepage impacts.--(A) The Secretary, in implementing
this Act, shall not cause material adverse impacts to third
parties. The Secretary shall reduce Flows to the extent
necessary to address any material adverse impacts to third
parties from groundwater seepage or levee instability caused
by such flows identified based on the monitoring program of
the Secretary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Secretary
shall not directly or indirectly cause groundwater to rise
above 10 feet below ground surface and shall provide at least
10 feet below ground surface as a minimum threshold elevation
for groundwater beneath any fields where permanent or other
deep rooted crops are grown, and at least 6 feet below ground
surface as a minimum threshold elevation for groundwater
beneath any fields where annual or shallow rooted crops are
grown. These minimum thresholds shall be adjusted yearly
based upon information provided by individual landowners
regarding the minimum threshold that they will need in order
to grow their crop(s) that year. If during the course of the
year the landowner informs the Secretary that detrimental
seepage is being experienced or is reasonably likely to occur
despite the adherence to the minimum threshold, the Secretary
shall reduce Restoration Flows to a volume sufficient to
reduce seepage impacts by reducing the occurrence of
groundwater to a non-damaging level below ground surface.
``(B) If Flow reduction alone is not sufficient to mitigate
for seepage impacts the Secretary shall mitigate by real
estate transaction or installation of physical measures,
whichever option is requested by the landowner.
``(C) Any water that seeps onto private property shall
thereupon become the property of that landowner if the
landowner takes control of the water including by re-
diverting it to the San Joaquin River. If seepage water is
returned to the San Joaquin River it shall meet applicable
water quality requirements.
``(4) Temporary fish barrier program.--Using funds
otherwise available from the San Joaquin River Restoration
Fund if necessary, the Secretary is authorized to make
improvements to the Hills Ferry Barrier or any replacement
thereof in order to prevent upstream migration of any
protected species to the restoration area. The Secretary is
further authorized to work with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife for the improvement or replacement of the
Hills Ferry Barrier in order to prevent the upstream
migration of any protected species. If third parties south of
the confluence with the Merced River are required to install
their screens or fish bypass facilities in order to comply
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Secretary shall
bear the costs of such screens or facilities, except to the
extent that such costs are already or are further willingly
borne by the State of California or by the third parties.
Expenditures by Reclamation are non-reimbursable. Any
protected species recovered at the Hills Ferry Barrier or in
the Restoration Area or any river or false pathways thereto
that is to be relocated outside of the Restoration Area shall
only be relocated to an area where there is an established
self-sustaining population of that same genotype or
phenotype.''; and
(D) by amending subsection (j) to read as follows:
``(j) San Joaquin River Exchange Contract and Related.--
Subject to section 10006(b), nothing in this part shall
modify or amend the rights and obligations under the Purchase
Contract between Miller and Lux and the United States
including without exclusion of others, any right to enforce
the power contracts identified in the Purchase Contract, the
Second Amended Exchange Contract between the United States,
Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and Central
California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company,
Firebaugh Canal Water District, and Columbia Canal Company.
Prior to releasing any restoration flow, the Secretary shall
determine that such release will not affect its contractual
obligations to the Exchange Contractors.''.
(4) Acquisition of property.--Section 10005 of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11)
is amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Acquisition of Property.--The Secretary is authorized
to acquire property solely through purchase from willing
sellers any property, interests in property, or options to
acquire real property needed to implement the Settlement
authorized by this part. The Secretary shall not acquire
property through the exercise of eminent domain unless the
owner of said property does not object to an eminent domain
action.
``(c) Disposal of Property.--Any property or interests
therein acquired by the Secretary and for which the Secretary
determines that the property or interest therein is no longer
needed to be held by the United States for the furtherance of
the Settlement, shall be first offered for repurchase to the
prior owner of the property from whom the United States
acquired the property and at the same price for which the
United States acquired the property unless it is demonstrated
that the property has decreased in value in which case the
Secretary shall sell the property back to the prior owner at
the decreased price. If the prior owner does not want the
property, the Secretary shall sell the property on the open
market.''.
(5) Compliance with applicable law.--Section 10006 of the
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-
11) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``as necessary'' and
inserting ``as necessary, as provided for in this part and in
a manner that does not conflict with the intent of Congress
as expressed in this title which intent shall be afforded the
greatest deference and any difference or ambiguity shall be
resolved in favor of said intent'' before the period at the
end; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``Any statutory exemptions from conducting environmental
review or consultation are not applicable.'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Except as
provided in subsection (e) below, nothing''; and
(ii) by striking ``State law.'' and inserting ``State law,
except as otherwise provided for herein or would conflict
with achieving the purposes or intent of this title.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) In General.--Sections 5930 through 5948 of the
California Fish and Game Code and all applicable Federal
laws, including this part, as amended by the Gaining
Responsibility on Water Act of 2017, 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 implementation of
the Settlement as provided in section 10014(b) or the plan
provided in section 10014(a) of the Gaining Responsibility on
Water Act of 2017.
``(f) Compliance With Existing Friant Division Contracts.--
Congress hereby finds and declares that compliance with the
provisions of this Act by Friant Division Contractors shall
fulfill all requirements for compliance with this part,
contained in contracts between the Secretary and Friant
Division Contractors.''.
(6) No private right of action.--Section 10008(a) of the
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-
11) is amended by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting
``the Settlement or a third party''.
(7) Settlement fund.--Section 10009 of the San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (3) to read as
follows:
``(3) Limitation.--Except as provided in the Settlement, to
the extent that costs incurred solely to implement this
Settlement 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. Any
appropriations by Congress to implement this part shall be on
the basis of line item authorizations and appropriations and
shall not be part of the programmatic funding for the
Secretary or the Bureau of Reclamation.''; and
(B) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Reach 4B.--No Restoration Flows released shall be
routed through section 4B of the San Joaquin River. The
Secretary shall seek to make use of modified and/or existing
conveyance facilities such as flood control channels in order
to provide conveyance for the restoration flows. Congress
finds that such use of multi-use facilities is more
economical and cost-effective than seeking to restore certain
sections of the San Joaquin River. The Secretary shall
provide non-reimbursable funding for the incremental increase
in maintenance costs for use of the flood control channels.
``(g) No Impact on Water Supplies.--Re-introduction or
migration of species to the San Joaquin River upstream of the
confluence with the Merced River made possible by or aided by
the existence of restoration flows or any improvements to the
river made hereunder shall not result in water supply
reductions, additional storage releases, or bypass flows on
unwilling third parties due to such re-introduction.
``(h) No Transference of Liability.--Congress finds that
the Federal interest in the restoration of the San Joaquin
River upstream of the confluence with the Merced River has
been satisfied with regard to the development of the Friant
Division, Delta Mendota canal, the continued performance of
and compliance with the terms of agreements of the United
States to purchase water rights and for exchange of water,
its Agreements with the entities that comprise the Exchange
Contractors to deliver their water rights in the San Joaquin
River pursuant to the terms of the agreements. The enactment
of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, together
with findings in this legislation including the Settling
Parties and agencies of the State of California tried to
implement the Restoration Program for ten years and the
Bureau of Reclamation has stated it will take at least
another 15 years to implement assuming full funding is
provided, even though that full funding has never been
provided since the Settlement was executed or the Restoration
Act enacted, and that absent implementation of that funding,
there is no possibility of establishing a viable self-
sustaining salmonid population and the restoration of the
upper San Joaquin River has proven infeasible on terms
originally conceived by the parties to the Settlement and
Congress in the Restoration Act. Therefore, notwithstanding
that the United States and water users and agencies within
the Friant Division are released of any existing or future
obligations with regard to the Restoration Program, or any
similar program, no responsibility for achieving the goals of
the Restoration Program, including the provision of flows and
the re-introduction of salmon, or other fish species to the
San Joaquin River, shall be imposed on the United States,
upon the Exchange Contractors or any of its members nor shall
the rights to delivery of water reserved to the Exchange
Contractors by any agency of the
[[Page H5516]]
United States or the State of California be abridged or
impaired.
``(i) Absence of Agreement.--In the absence of an agreement
with Friant Division long-term contractors, in the event the
State of California, acting through the State Water Resources
Control Board or otherwise, or any other party requires the
flow of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to exceed the
amounts stated in Exhibit B of the Settlement, then the
authorization to implement the Settlement as provided in this
Act shall terminate and the Secretary of the Interior shall
cease any action to implement this part 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 LLK/GGH); provided, further, the Secretary
shall also cease to collect or expend any funds from the San
Joaquin River Restoration Fund.''.
(b) Review and Determination.--San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 10012. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION.
``(a) Determination Required.--The Governor and the
Secretary, shall determine, in consideration of the overall
public interest of both the State of California and the
Nation, if it is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to
implement the Settlement as provided in section 10014(b) and
shall submit a joint report to Congress not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, stating their
findings and recommended action, including--
``(1) financial considerations;
``(2) available scientific evidence;
``(3) water temperature in the lower reaches of the upper
San Joaquin River; and
``(4) alternative uses for the funds required to implement
the Settlement.
``(b) Absence of Timely Determination.--If the Governor and
the Secretary, do not provide a joint recommendation within
the time specified in subsection (a), then it shall be deemed
that implementing the Settlement consistent with section
10014(b) is not reasonable, prudent, and feasible, and the
Secretary shall proceed to implement the Settlement
consistent with section 10014(a).
``SEC. 10013. INTERIM OPERATIONS.
``Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Gaining
Responsibility on Water Act of 2017 and continuing until a
determination and final plan has been developed and approved
by the Secretary and Governor as provided under section
10014(b), and if applicable, the warm water fishery plan
developed under section 10014(a), the Secretary shall only
take the following actions to implement the Settlement
according to the this Act:
``(1) Implementation of the Restoration Goal and the Water
Management Goal of the Settlement only to the extent
consistent with section 10014(b).
``(2) No Restoration Flow releases shall be permitted on
the San Joaquin River downstream of Sack Dam to the
confluence with the Merced River.
``(3) No salmonids shall be placed into or allowed to
migrate to the Restoration Area. If any salmonids are caught
at the Hills Ferry Barrier, they shall be salvaged to the
extent feasible and returned to an area where there is a
viable sustainable salmonid population of substantially the
same genotype or phenotype.
``(4) Implementation of a plan to recirculate, recapture,
reuse, exchange and transfer Restoration Flows for the
purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts to water deliveries
to all Friant Division long-term contractors caused by the
Restoration Flows , to the greatest extent feasible.
``SEC. 10014. ALTERNATE LONG-TERM ACTIONS.
``(a) Gravelly Ford-Warm Water Fishery.--
``(1) If it is determined under section 10012(a) that the
Settlement should not be implemented as provided in
subsection (b), then not later than 1 year after such
determination, the Secretary and the Governor shall develop
and approve a reasonable, prudent, and feasible plan for
maintaining a warm water fishery on the San Joaquin River
below Friant Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford, consistent
with the following:
``(A) No water shall be released into the San Joaquin River
for fishery purposes downstream of Gravelly Ford.
``(B) Existing and future contributions to the Restoration
Fund shall be expended for the purposes of--
``(i) warm water fishery improvements within the San
Joaquin River channel upstream of Gravelly Ford; and
``(ii) water and fishery improvements in the San Joaquin
River channel downstream of the confluence with the Merced
River and other areas for benefit of fall run salmon.
``(C) The Secretary shall establish a fund to be jointly
administered by the Friant Water Authority, Exchange
Contractors, San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, and San Luis
Delta Mendota Water Authority to fund restoration actions
along the San Joaquin River and its tributaries that achieve
water quality objectives for the protection of fish and
wildlife. The Secretary shall transfer the following into the
fund:
``(i) All funds in the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund
authorized by this part.
``(ii) All future payments by Friant Division long-term
contractors pursuant to section 3406(c)(1) of the Reclamation
Projects, Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public
Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4721) as provided in the Settlement.
``(D) In the absence of an agreement with Friant Division
long-term contractors, in the event the State of California,
acting through the State Water Resources Control Board or
otherwise, or any other party requires the flow of the San
Joaquin River to continue below Gravelly Ford for fish and
wildlife purposes then--
``(i) all funding specified for transfer under this
subsection shall cease, and any funds remaining in the San
Joaquin River Basin Restoration Fund shall be transferred to
the Friant Water Authority for implementing conveyance
improvements on the Friant Kern Canal and Madera Canal to
mitigate for subsidence impacts since their original
construction; and
``(ii) the authorization to implement the Settlement as
provided in this part, as amended by the Gaining
Responsibility on Water Act of 2017, shall terminate and the
Secretary shall cease any action to implement this part 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 LLK/GGH); provided, further,
the Secretary shall also cease to collect or expend any funds
from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
``(b) Continued Implementation.--If, in the decision
required by section 10012(a), it is determined that the
Settlement should continue to be implemented as provided in
section 10014(b), then the following terms are required for
Continued Implementation of Settlement and no funds shall be
expended to implement the Settlement other than as provided
for herein:
``(1) Improvements.--The improvements described in
paragraph (11) of the Settlement and any additional
improvements identified in the Framework for Implementation
published in 2015 and any successors thereto shall be
completed before any Restoration Flows are released to the
San Joaquin River.
``(2) Priority projects.--The improvements shall be
constructed in the following order:
``(A) Mendota Pool bypass and fish screen.
``(B) Arroyo Canal fish screen and Sack Dam fish passage
facilities.
``(C) Seepage mitigation actions to allow Restoration Flows
of up to 4500 CFS such that there will be no involuntarily
incurred damage to private property and no damage to levees.
``(3) Other improvements.--The remainder of the
Improvements shall be constructed in an order deemed
appropriate by the Secretary after the foregoing projects are
completed.
``(4) Construction assistance.--If agreed to by the
Exchange Contractors or any of its members, the Secretary
shall enter into an agreement with the Exchange Contractors
or any of its members to assume construction responsibility
from initial design through completion of such improvements
as the Exchange Contractors or any of its members may agree
to, provided that the Secretary shall retain financial
responsibility for such improvements and shall reimburse the
Exchange Contractors or any of its members for costs incurred
by them and their contractors, if any, expended in the
construction of the improvements. The Secretary shall enter
into a construction agreement with the Exchange Contractors
or its members, as applicable, and subject to their approval,
consistent with the terms of this title.
``(5) Technical advisory committee and restoration
administrator.--The Secretary shall add to the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), established pursuant to the
Settlement, one representative from the Exchange Contractors
and one representative from the San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority. Any decisions and/or recommendations made by
the Restoration Administrator shall be first discussed with
the TAC and made on the basis of consensus to maximum extent
possible. Any recommendations made by the Restoration
Administrator are advisory only, shall be in writing, shall
include references to the science relied on and specify the
benefits to fish in the river, and include the level of
consensus reached by the TAC. The Secretary's final decision
on any action, including flows, can deviate from the
Restoration Administrator's recommendation provided that the
Secretary's final decision is based upon sound and objective
science, and is otherwise consistent with this title.
``(6) Restoration flows.--The appropriate level of
Restoration Flows under any circumstance shall be no greater
than that set forth in the hydrographs attached as exhibit B
to the Settlement, and shall be no greater than the real-time
fishery needs required to meet the Restoration Goal. The
Secretary shall make the final decision as to the appropriate
level of Restoration Flows and other actions regarding
implementation of the Restoration Program. The appropriate
level of Restoration Flows shall at a minimum not exceed
channel capacity, cause seepage damage, or be inconsistent
with any other requirements in this section. The Secretary's
decisions and those of the Secretary of Commerce shall be
fully supported by the best commercial and scientific
information available, shall be made in an open and
transparent manner, and shall be based on objective
information capable of replication.
``(7) Fish reintroduction.--No fishery shall be introduced
or placed for any reason in to the San Joaquin River upstream
of the Merced River, until Reclamation has released
Restoration Flows down the San Joaquin River in each
hydrologic year type: wet, above normal, below normal, dry,
and critically dry and determined that the improvements are
fully functional and that seepage impacts have been fully
mitigated. At least 180 days before the introduction of
spring run Chinook salmon the Bureau of Reclamation shall
submit a report to Congress that provides a critical
examination of the impact of Restoration Flows on seepage and
the improvements, and the likelihood of success in restoring
a salmon fishery that is viable, sustainable and capable of
volitional passage.
``(8) Protected species.--Any protected species migrating
into the Restoration Area shall be deemed to be a
nonessential experimental population. Congress finds that due
to human-caused physical changes to the pathways of the San
Joaquin River upstream of the confluence of the Merced River
the San Joaquin River is
[[Page H5517]]
deemed a distinct and separate geographic area and no agency
shall take any action pursuant to any authority or
requirement of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) or any other Federal or State species
protection law that will have an adverse impact on landowners
or water agencies within the Restoration Area unless such
impacts are incurred on a voluntary basis.
``(9) Subsidence.--Prior to implementing any other actions,
the Secretary shall work with local water districts and
landowners to ensure the actions include appropriate
solutions to past and likely future subsidence. Without
resolution to the subsidence issue, the improvements
described in the Settlement and the San Joaquin River and/or
the flood control system will continue to be irreparability
damaged. Any costs incurred by the Secretary, including but
not limited to acquisition of property from willing sellers
shall be non-reimbursable.
``(10) Full funding.--Prior to commencing construction of
any Improvement, the Secretary shall approve a funding plan
that demonstrates that the United States has obtained all
authorizations for appropriations combined with other
authorized and reasonably foreseeable funding sources
necessary for the orderly completion of all improvements
described in paragraph (11) of the Settlement and any
additional improvements identified in the Framework for
Implementation published in 2015, including any amendments
thereto.
``(11) Mitigation of impacts.--Prior to the implementation
of decisions or agreements to construct, improve, operate, or
maintain Improvements. or facilities that the Secretary
determines are needed to implement the Settlement, the
Secretary shall--
``(A) identify the impacts associated with such actions;
``(B) identify the actions that the Secretary must
implement to mitigate any impacts on water users and
landowners in the Restoration Area; and
``(C) shall implement all of the mitigation actions so as
to eliminate or reduce to an immaterial effect any adverse
impacts on water users and landowners.''.
TITLE II--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
SEC. 201. 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 November 30, 2018;
(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,
2018;
(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, 2018;
(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,
2019;
(5) 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,
2019;
(6) 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
(7) 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. 202. 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, 2017,
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. 203. WATER STORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.
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.
TITLE III--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
SEC. 301. 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 title
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 title, 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 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 title
reduces environmental protections for any species covered by
the opinions.
SEC. 302. 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
through 12220, inclusive).
(b) Diversions.--Any action undertaken by the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to both
this title 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.
SEC. 303. 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 title,
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 title 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,
[[Page H5518]]
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 title 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. 304. 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
(1) 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, municipal, and industrial 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. 305. EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.
Nothing in this title 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 IV--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. 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. 402. 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. 403. 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
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.
SEC. 404. 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.
SEC. 405. CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.
(a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretaries
shall--
(1) recognize Congressional opposition to the violation of
private property rights by the California State Water
Resources Control Board in their proposal to require a
minimum percentage of unimpaired flows in the main
tributaries of the San Joaquin River; and
(2) recognize the need to provide reliable water supplies
to municipal, industrial, and agricultural users across the
State.
TITLE V--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Water Supply Permitting
Coordination Act''.
SEC. 502. 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''--
(A) 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, unless the project applicant elects
not to participate in the process authorized by this Act; and
(B) includes State-led storage projects (as defined in
section 4007(a)(2) of the WIIN Act) for 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, unless
the project applicant elects not to participate in the
process authorized by this Act.
(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 503(c).
SEC. 503. 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,
[[Page H5519]]
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. 504. 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 505.
SEC. 505. 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 504, 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 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. 506. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in
accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Administrative Procedure Act''), 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 (a)(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 VI--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation
Project Streamlining Act''.
SEC. 602. 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
[[Page H5520]]
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. 603. 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 605(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. 604. 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
(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. 605. 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 nonfederally
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 705(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;
[[Page H5521]]
(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.--
(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--
[[Page H5522]]
(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.--
(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 title 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
[[Page H5523]]
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--
(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. 606. 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
[[Page H5524]]
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.
SEC. 607. APPLICABILITY OF WIIN ACT.
Sections 4007 and 4009 of the WIIN Act (Public Law 114-322)
shall not apply to any project (as defined in section 602 of
this Act).
TITLE VII--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Water Rights Protection
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means, as
applicable--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture; or
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Water right.--The term ``water right'' means any
surface, groundwater, or storage use filed, permitted,
certificated, 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 it to
beneficial use. Such term shall include water rights for
federally recognized Indian Tribes
SEC. 703. TREATMENT OF WATER RIGHTS.
The Secretary shall not--
(1) condition 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 the transfer of any water right (including joint
and sole ownership) directly or indirectly to the United
States, or on any impairment of title or interest, 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; or
(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.
SEC. 704. POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
In developing any rule, policy, directive, management plan,
or similar Federal action relating to the issuance, renewal,
amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license,
lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use
or occupancy agreement, the Secretary--
(1) shall--
(A) recognize the longstanding authority of the States
relating to evaluating, protecting, allocating, regulating,
permitting, and adjudicating water use; and
(B) coordinate with the States to ensure that any rule,
policy, directive, management plan, or similar Federal action
is consistent with, and imposes no greater restriction or
regulatory requirement, than applicable State water law; and
(2) shall not--
(A) adversely affect--
(i) the authority of a State in--
(I) permitting the beneficial use of water; or
(II) adjudicating water rights;
(ii) any definition established by a State with respect to
the term ``beneficial use'', ``priority of water rights'', or
``terms of use''; or
(iii) any other right or obligation of a State established
under State law; or
(B) assert any connection between surface and groundwater
that is inconsistent with such a connection recognized by
State water laws.
SEC. 705. EFFECT.
(a) Existing Authority.--Nothing in this title limits or
expands any existing legally recognized authority of the
Secretary 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 that is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(b) Reclamation Contracts.--Nothing in this title in any
way interferes with any existing or future Bureau of
Reclamation contract entered into pursuant to Federal
reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388,
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of
that Act).
(c) 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) Federal Reserved Water Rights.--Nothing in this title
limits or expands any existing reserved water rights of the
Federal Government on land administered by the Secretary.
(e) Federal Power Act.--Nothing in this title limits or
expands authorities pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(j), or 18
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e), 803(j), 811).
(f) Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title limits or
expands any existing reserved water right or treaty right of
any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(g) Federally Held State Water Rights.--Nothing in this
title limits the ability of the Secretary, through applicable
State procedures, to acquire, use, enforce, or protect a
State water right owned by the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House
Report 115-212. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as 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
[[Page H5525]]
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
{time} 1745
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 63, strike line 19 through page 64, line 2 and insert
the following:
(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 the opportunity for individuals or districts that
receive Central Valley Project Water under water service or
repayment contracts or water rights settlement contracts
within the American River, Sacramento River, Shasta and
Trinity River Divisions to reschedule water, provided for
under their Central Valley Project water service, repayment
or settlement contracts, within the same year or from one
year to the next.
Page 64, strike lines 3 through 12, and insert the
following:
(e) Definition.--In this section, the year type terms used
in subsection (a)
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, 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. Chair, I thank Mr. McClintock for managing this bill
and for his help on this.
I am pleased to support the bill, the GROW Act, which, contrary to
some claims, protects northern California water rights and keeps more
water in the north than the status quo. I should know because I
represent the source of the overwhelming majority of California's
usable water.
The underlying bill improves water efficiency by allowing junior
water contractors in the Sacramento Valley to carry over water supplies
from one year to the next in Lake Shasta, retaining access to those
supplies the following year, which promotes efficiency when you are
banking that additional water for future use.
This amendment improves the bill by ensuring that all Federal water
contractors in the Sacramento Valley have the same ability to
reschedule their water supplies.
Mr. Chair, under the current system, water contractors are forced to
use it or lose it. If water allocations are not fully used each year,
the ability to access that water is lost.
Now, around Washington, D.C., that use-it-or-lose-it attitude usually
means a lot of money that sits in certain agencies' bank accounts or in
their pots, it is just used up. Why would we want to do that kind of
thing with water? We need to be banking it and saving it, where
practical, to be usable in the next year or to pass to others who could
use it as well.
During wet years, farms and ranches may choose to reschedule a
portion of their water for the following year. This bill and this
amendment will significantly improve planning and delivery of water
supplies by ensuring maximum flexibility, flexibility which we need,
and allowing water to be accessed when it is needed most.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I also represent northern California. My
friend, Mr. LaMalfa, just said that this bill fully protects northern
California's water. Well, we represent the two districts right next to
each other that are the northernmost districts in California, and I can
tell you, my part of northern California doesn't do so well under this
bill.
In fact, the only way we have been able to prevent a repeat of a
catastrophic fish kill disaster in the Klamath River system each of the
last several years has been by releasing cold water in the Trinity
River, which is a major tributary to the lower Klamath River. That has
been a lifesaver for the communities downstream that depend on those
salmon runs. This bill would legislatively prohibit the Bureau of
Reclamation from ever doing that again.
So this is not a bill that is good for northern California,
certainly, my part of northern California. And I think the same goes
for the other northern California colleagues that we heard testify in
opposition earlier.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, providing flexibility for more parts of
California does not, indeed, punish any other part of northern
California. With that, we have to dispel some of these notions about
what the end goal is for this legislation and for my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This amendment is about rescheduled water, and this is a technical
term that, for people who aren't familiar with water use in California
and other parts of the country, it allows people with water rights,
whether they be senior or junior water rights, to reserve that water,
in other words, to reschedule it, to hold it off for another time when
it might be more valuable to use. And so this is an important tool.
I agree with Congressman LaMalfa that water users throughout
California should have flexibility to use their water supplies in ways
that are most beneficial to be able to reschedule it.
I do have some concerns that this amendment may have unintended
consequences with other water users downstream should it become law
without changes. Specifically, it is critical that those with more
junior water rights, like some of the areas I represent south of the
California delta, are not negatively impacted when they reschedule
their water from senior water rights holders.
Water is precious. You have water shortages. So if I want to reserve
it for later in the year or for the next water year, that means
rescheduled water. So for these water users, we want to protect that
ability.
Additionally, in the event that a future wet year causes spilling of
rescheduled water, it is critical that the priority of the water
spilling is addressed in a fair and equitable manner.
I would like to work with the gentleman to address these concerns.
And I thank him, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be able to work with my
colleague, Mr. Costa, to ensure that these concerns are met and
addressed as the bill moves through the Senate.
I believe the ability to reschedule water deliveries for these
periods when they are needed should be offered as widely as possible,
and I appreciate the support in that goal.
Indeed, the opportunity that we can help the Central Valley with
this, I relish that opportunity to do so. More facilities to store more
water is, indeed, very important so we have more flexibility for Mr.
Costa and his neighbors, constituents.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very
good amendment. The committee supports it, and it is essential to
providing the flexibility that is necessary.
I might point out to my colleague from California, when we originally
developed this bill more than 5 years ago, we consulted more than 60
water agencies throughout northern and central California, including
many in Democratic congressional districts. Senior water rights are
essential to northern California. This bill strengthens them, and Mr.
LaMalfa's amendment adds the management flexibility that is long
overdue.
Mr. COSTA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
That is correct. I know this was offered 5 years ago. I would like to
point out, though, in the last 5 years of the drought conditions, we
have learned a whole lot more about the flexibility and how you can and
cannot use rescheduled water and, of course, how valuable it is.
[[Page H5526]]
So I respect and thank the gentleman, Congressman LaMalfa, for
working together on this to ensure that we protect all of the water
users in their ability to have flexibility, especially during drought
times.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, indeed, whether it is a drought period where
we have to work even harder to spread that water around or in a year of
abundance like what we had, we have to be wise about storing it where
we can and having the flexibility to put it where we need to and having
additional facilities in the future to store farther into the drought
years that, no doubt, will come. This is what we are looking for in
this legislation and what I am trying to promote for my particular area
in northern California with this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. How much time do I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) has 45
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, indeed, the water battles in California
have been very difficult for many, many years, but what I hear from the
other side of the aisle is a whole lot of ``no.'' What I hear from
normal Californians who aren't in positions of elected leadership who
seem to be more interested in catering to a few environmental groups
instead of the needs of Californians, especially on the heels of
drought, what these Californians are saying is: Get this stuff done.
Get these projects done. Help us out. Help us to have jobs in our State
and not cater to just a handful of interests here that will help us
through another election.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to present the amendment and proud to work
with these folks, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I actually have no problem with my
colleague's attempt to make a clarification to this bill. That
clarification is needed, I am sure, but it is important to realize that
the reason it is needed is because we haven't gone through regular
order. We are talking about provisions that have not had the benefit of
hearings, of markups, of witness testimony, clarifications that would
have been made in the regular order process.
The underlying bill, it is important to remember, does enormous
damage to California water law. That is why it is opposed by the
Governor, by our attorney general, by our two U.S. Senators, and by
many members of the California delegation.
Mr. Chair, 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. 2 Offered by Mr. Costa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. COSTA. 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:
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. 204. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY.
The Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the United
States Geological Survey, the State of California, and local
and State water agencies, may conduct detailed geophysical
characterization activities of subsurface aquifer systems and
groundwater vulnerability in California, which has
experienced a critical, multi-year drought that resulted in
severe groundwater overdraft in some areas, followed by less
than optimal recharge from the heavy rainstorms and flooding
during the 2016-2017 winter season. This geophysical survey
should include data pertaining to the following:
(1) Subsurface system framework: occurrence and geometry of
aquifer and non-aquifer zones.
(2) Aquifer storage and transmission characteristics.
(3) Areas of greatest recharge potential.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to first thank the Rules Committee chairman, and the
ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, for making my amendment in order.
Mr. Chair, groundwater storage is a central element of drought
resilience in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout California.
Recharging our groundwater that has been overdrafted is critical in
terms of our overall strategy to use all the water tools in our water
management toolbox.
California's hydrological cycle is varied, with each year's intense
rainfall and flooding like this year followed by prolonged periods of
droughts like the previous 5 years. As a matter of fact, in California,
it is either feast or famine. We don't have enough or we have too much
water.
This varied hydrological cycle means that regions like the San
Joaquin Valley rely heavily on groundwater to supply regional water
needs during the dry years, and that is how the overdraft takes place.
An attempt to refill that pumped water during wet years comes all too
infrequently.
The recent record drought, coupled with previous droughts and policy
changes that have led to shifting of water supplies from agriculture
water uses to environmental uses over the last 25 years, has literally
resulted in ground sinking beneath the feet of the people of the San
Joaquin Valley.
These depletions led the State of California to pass a law in 2014
that regulates the use of groundwater, with the objective of creating
groundwater balance over time. It is called the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, otherwise referred to as SGMA.
Obviously, we ought to make our groundwater sustainable, and there
are a lot of different ways in which we can do so in terms of that
water strategy. This amendment purports to address part of that.
Many groundwater basins have been overdrafted for long periods of
time. Twenty-one of California's 515 groundwater basins now are
considered critically overdrafted. That is a real, real serious crisis.
It is critical that efforts are taken to recharge these groundwater
aquifers so that the water is available during the dry years, which we
know will surely come. This is all about sustainability. We know that
the performance of any projected groundwater recharge and recovery
project is reliant on a thorough understanding of how the surface and
subsurface waters interact with a geographical region.
Without thoroughly developed and field-verified information about the
geophysical characteristics of California's groundwater aquifer systems
and best areas for groundwater recharge projects, compliance with
California's recently enacted Sustainable Groundwater Management Act--
it is simply infeasible for us to expect that we are going to do that
without having all of the information together.
What we are trying to do in this legislation is provide the
opportunity to ensure that we have a reliable water supply so that we
have food security. After all, food security, I believe, is a national
security issue for America. It doesn't get looked at that way, but it
is.
California's Department of Water Resources has identified a number of
gaps in the scientific body of knowledge that need to be filled in
order to effectively recharge groundwater aquifers. Some of these
studies show that simply irrigating lands in the Central Valley with
right soil conditions for groundwater percolation could lead to an
additional 2 million to 6 million acre-feet of groundwater
infiltration. That would double the level of recovery rate in a post-
drought winter like 2017.
This amendment would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation, partnered
with scientific agencies, the United States Geological Survey, and the
University of California, to conduct surveys for groundwater aquifers
to identify, one, subsurface aquifer systems framework, including the
geometry of areas where water can move more easily; two, aquifer
storage and transmission characteristics; and three, land areas of
greatest recharge potential.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
{time} 1800
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H5527]]
Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Fresno, California, for his constructive
contribution to this process.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman), who is from Marin County.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly offer my support
for my colleague's amendment. This is a commonsense amendment that
recognizes the tremendous potential that groundwater storage
represents. This is one of the most important tools in our water
management toolbox. We know that our future hydrology will be less
certain because of climate change. It is going to make droughts across
our country more frequent and severe.
This amendment will help make sure we are taking the appropriate
steps to prepare. So I want to thank my colleague for this forward-
thinking amendment, and I support its adoption.
Mr. COSTA. 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. Costa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Costa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. COSTA. 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:
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. 204. HEADWATER-RESTORATION SCOPING STUDY.
The Bureau of Reclamation may partner with academia,
specifically the University of California, and State and
local water agencies, to develop a study to enhance mountain
runoff to Central Valley Project reservoirs from headwater
restoration with the following aims:
(1) Estimate forest biomass density and annual
evapotranspiration (ET) across the Shasta Lake watershed for
the past decade using satellite and other available spatial
data.
(2) Identify areas on public and private land that have
high biomass densities and ET, and assess potential changes
in ET that would ensue from forest restoration.
(3) Assess role of subsurface storage in providing drought
resilience of forests, based on long-term historical
estimates of precipitation, drought severity and stream
discharge.
(4) Assess role of snowpack in annual water balance across
the watersheds.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to first, again, thank the Rules Committee
chair and Ranking Member Slaughter for making my amendment in order, as
well as acknowledge my colleague from California, Congressman LaMalfa,
for his work on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, a record drought and the most destructive wildfire
seasons on record have brought renewed attention to California's
headwaters. These forests, meadows, and other source waters play a
vital role in California's water supply and management system, and they
are under threat from a host of factors, including wildfires, climate
change impacts, and poor management policies.
More effective forest and headwaters management practices, such as
increased use of forest thinning and watershed restoration, have
demonstrated the potential to provide a measurable increase in water
supply to the Central Valley Project reservoirs that receive runoff
generated by these headwaters in the Sierra Nevadas, the beautiful
mountains that we have in California.
The Sierra Nevada mountain range, many people don't realize,
generates nearly 60 percent of California's developed water supply--60
percent. And that is why the abundance of snow on the mountains during
the wintertime is so critical.
Some estimates indicate that simply by instituting more effective
headwaters management policies, that up to 300,000 acre-feet of
additional water supplies--300,000 acre-feet--could be generated each
year.
Now, that is a significant yield of water when you look at the
overdraft crop problems that we have and some of the other
authorization of surface storage that we have made last year during the
WIIN Act.
As a matter of fact, the Bureau of Reclamation has analyzed that some
of the projects that I support, such as raising Shasta Dam 18 feet,
would generate anywhere from 75 to over 100,000 acre-feet of water
annually. So if we can generate an additional 300,000 acre-feet by
better managing our headwaters, this is almost three times that yield.
Simply managing our forests better could, in many instances,
quadruple our water supply and better produce environmental outcomes
for our forest ecosystems.
To put this in context, this is enough water to irrigate over 100,000
acres, of which we have significant overdraft of land, or provide daily
water for an additional 500,000 homes in California for an entire year.
My amendment would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into
partnerships to determine the amount of water that could be untapped by
doing these kinds of efforts.
Fixing California's broken water system, as I have said repeatedly,
means using all of the water tools in our water management toolbox.
Included in this amendment, we would be having the opportunity to
improve our headwater management in an integrated and multidisciplinary
approach that is responsive to the changing conditions that we face as
we know that will continue to occur.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from northern
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this
amendment as well.
The headwaters of our watersheds play a crucial role in ensuring the
reliability and the quality of water supplies throughout our State. Our
water supply depends not just on artificial reservoirs, but also on
natural reservoirs of snowpack and groundwater retention in the forests
of these headwater areas.
Healthy, vibrant forests provide multiple benefits, including carbon
capture and shade to reduce rapid snowmelt. When they are properly
protected, forest soils act like sponges to absorb rainfall and slowly
release it back into rivers and streams throughout the year.
This amendment is one of the many ways that we can ensure that the
Bureau of Reclamation is building a 21st century water supply system
for California and the West, so I strongly encourage support for it.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that has
bipartisan support. Frankly, I think as we learned so much more about
how the hydrology of California's water systems develop, we need to
take advantage of that knowledge. And this amendment will allow us to
do so in a way that makes this so valuable resource that we sometimes
take for granted--that is our water supply--to allow us to use it in a
way that makes sense and will provide the water needs for all
Californians.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Denham
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. DENHAM. 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:
At the end of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 406. NEW MELONES RESERVOIR.
The authority under section 4006 of the WIIN Act shall
expire 7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 407. ACTIONS TO BENEFIT THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
SPECIES AND OTHER WILDLIFE.
None of the funds made available under section 4010(b) of
the WIIN Act may be used for the acquisition or leasing of
land, water for in-stream purposes if the water is already
[[Page H5528]]
committed to in-stream purposes, or interests in land or
water from willing sellers if the land, water, or interests
are already designated for environmental purposes by a court
adopted decree or order or cooperative agreement.
SEC. 408. NON-FEDERAL PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS
FISH IN STANISLAUS RIVER.
The program established under section 4010(d) of the WIIN
Act shall not sunset before January 1, 2023.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
23.
This amendment updates a small portion of the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN Act, to protect endangered
species and assess water storage opportunities.
First, it sets a reasonable timeframe for the completion of expanded
water storage opportunities at the New Melones Reservoir. These
opportunities can increase available storage for conservation,
transfers, and rescheduled water projects to allow for maximum storage
within the reservoir. Conservative estimates of increased water storage
have been at 100,000 acre-feet, which will provide water for over
400,000 people for a year.
With such a precious resource, we must ensure our water storage
capacity is being used responsibly. This timeline of 7 years is
consistent with other provisions of the WIIN Act, and will ensure the
study will be completed so we can make best use of our water storage
capacity.
Additionally, this amendment helps protect our threatened and
endangered species.
In Western States, water users can buy and sell water rights. This
provision prevents individuals from using funding set aside for species
conservation to buy water rights and sell them back to the government.
Funding in section 4010(b) of the WIIN Act was allocated to benefit
endangered species populations through habitat restoration, improved
monitoring, and conservation fish hatcheries. This policy has been in
effect for the Central Valley Project Improvement Act for over a decade
and needs to be applied to this section as well. This ensures funding
will be used for its intended purposes to help endangered species, not
to buy and resell water rights.
Finally, this amendment extends a program to protect native fish in
the Stanislaus River for 2 years. This program allows for the taking of
invasive species that prey on native salmon and steelhead in the
Stanislaus River. It was originally authorized for 5 years. However,
since the spawn cycle for these salmon is 3 years, it needs to be
extended to ensure two full salmon cohort cycles can be observed.
In conclusion, this amendment protects native and endangered species,
and ensures we are making the most of water storage capacity at the New
Melones Reservoir.
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. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. 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:
At the end of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. 406. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROGRAMS.
Section 3405(e) of the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The Secretary, through the office established under
this subsection, shall review available and new, innovative
technologies and programs for capturing municipal wastewater
and recycling it for providing drinking water and energy, and
report on the feasibility of expanding the implementation of
these technologies and programs among Central Valley Project
contractors.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment asks for a review of
existing best practices worldwide for the capture and reuse of
wastewater and a feasibility study on the expansion of these efforts.
Existing policy requires a review of conservation plans of Central
Valley Project contractors. I believe we should look further than just
what we are currently doing and learn from new, emerging technologies
and practices from around the world for recycling wastewater.
Capturing wastewater for reuse is not new. Orange County, California,
implemented its Groundwater Replenishment System in 2008, which
augments the water supply for 850,000 residents with treated wastewater
and helps reduce the area's dependence on water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin delta.
In Singapore, an initiative to recycle wastewater supplies
approximately one-third of the country's water demand. In Israel,
treated sewage water meets approximately one-quarter of the country's
needed water.
Across California, more than 200 billion gallons of municipal
wastewater are already reused each year. According to one report,
California has an unrealized opportunity to grow that number to between
390 billion and 590 billion acre-feet per year.
The need for innovation to increase the amount of available water is
very clear. Between 2011 and 2013, even before the onset of one of the
State's most severe droughts on record, water stored in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin watershed and the Central Valley dropped by nearly 20
billion cubic meters, or two-thirds of the volume of Lake Mead.
We need to prepare for more severe droughts in the coming decades.
With innovation and technologies available in the United States and
around the world, we could and should continue to look for new ways to
augment our water supply and enhance our water security.
Around the world and across the United States, innovation and
technologies for capturing and recycling wastewater are improving, and
their costs are falling. The purpose of this amendment is to understand
the current state of these technologies and to identify opportunities
for expanding them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a superfluous
provision that requires a study on a subject that we have already
studied to death.
We find the left constantly proposing these technologies to manage
our existing water shortage often as an excuse not to expand our
ability to store new water supplies.
The problem is not complicated. These recycling projects are
typically four times as expensive as traditional water storage,
according to a 2016 study by the California Public Utilities
Commission.
If we had exhausted our existing resources, then these technologies
might make sense if the alternative is no water at all. But that is not
the alternative. The alternative is to develop our resources at about
one-fourth the cost of these technologies the gentleman is trying to
sell us--four times the cost.
No consumer in his right mind would pay four times more for the same
product. Only politicians would do that, and the problem is when
politicians make this choice, consumers end up paying.
Which brings me to my second objection to the gentleman's amendment.
Our traditional water projects are paid for by the users of the water
in proportion to their use, as is the beneficiary pays principle that
has guided our water projects for generations.
[[Page H5529]]
{time} 1815
These policies protect taxpayers from footing the bill for somebody
else's water.
The title 16 recycling projects the gentleman is promoting are not
paid for by the water users but rather by general taxpayers, meaning
these projects literally rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul.
If the gentleman would like to confine the provisions of the bill to
require his constituents to pay four times more for their water or that
his constituents pay to subsidize the water for my constituents, I
would be happy to support him. But I sincerely doubt that is what he
has in mind.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. DeSaulnier's
amendment to H.R. 23.
Recycling projects provide sustainable water sources that help make
our communities drought-resilient. In Sacramento, we are working to
build a project that would use claimed wastewater to irrigate up to
18,000 acres of farmland and habitat.
These are the types of projects that help prepare California for the
next drought, and they result in more water for our farms and cities.
We should be working on sustainable solutions like these.
Last Congress, I introduced a bill to improve the Bureau of
Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Funding Program by
removing the requirement that each recycling project receive an
explicit congressional authorization. The bill was included in the WIIN
Act passed into law last year, thereby expanding the pool of eligible
projects.
Mr. DeSaulnier's amendment continues to move us forward by
emphasizing the importance of recycling in our approach to managing
water use. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Fixing California's broken water system, as we all know, involves
multiple strategies. Recycled water, on-farm recharge, and other
innovative methods of increasing water supply, we have found, improves
the situation, but there is no silver bullet to solving California's
long-term water challenges.
In the Valley, we understand that, and this is why many communities
moved forward on efforts to diversify their water supplies. For
example, the Del Puerto Water District has partnered in northern Merced
and Stanislaus Counties with the cities of Modesto and Turlock on a
project that uses treated wastewater to irrigate agricultural fields,
creating significant water security for about 30 percent of Del
Puerto's Central Valley water supply that is rarely delivered.
This is cost-effective and costs less than other alternatives. We are
partnering with local water districts in the city of Mendota and the
city of Fresno.
So this is a very valuable source of water, and we ought to encourage
it whenever possible. More efforts like this are necessary.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, in defense of the economics of water
recycling, I need to correct the record.
The WateReuse Research Foundation has found that recycling projects
tend to be among the cheapest ways to increase water supply. Potable
water reuse is generally comparable or less expensive than alternative
options.
The Congressional Research Service has found that title 16 water
recycling projects are comparable in price to alternate water sources--
in some cases, substantially cheaper--and there is vast new potential
to develop these water supplies.
This is exactly the kind of forward-thinking conversation we ought to
have if we are serious about California water.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply cite to my friend the
California Public Utilities Commission report in 2016, and what would
be the cost of future sources of water for California. They say very
clearly that recycling water is nearly four times as costly as
traditional sources of water, and that is being generous.
I support any water project that pencils out. This one does not. This
one would require water bills to quadruple. For California, it is
exactly policies like these that are driving water bills up. The people
of California need to take note of that and to realize the choices they
make at the ballot box have real world implications to the bills they
are paying for simple things like water and power.
Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, 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. 6 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, 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 131, beginning on line 5, strike ``Such term shall
include water rights for federally recognized Indian
Tribes''.
Page 131, beginning on line 19, strike ``(including any
federally recognized Indian Tribe)''.
Page 134, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the
following:
(f) Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title shall have
any effect on tribal water rights or their adjudication, or
the protection, settlement, or enforcement and/or
administration of such rights by either Indian tribes or the
United States as trustee for Indian tribes.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, water is life. We understand that in the
West maybe more than anywhere else in the world. So any time we are
talking about water, we are talking about life, we are talking about
the ability to have an economy, we are talking about jobs, we are
talking about communities. It affects us deeply in the West.
When the original bill, H.R. 23, was being marked up, my friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), brought a concern to the
members of the committee, saying that she felt like the underlying bill
did not adequately address Tribal water rights.
Tribes are some of the areas of deepest poverty in the country. As
she brought that up, it struck my attention that we should take a look
at it.
Ultimately, her amendment failed in committee, but the two of us,
with the chairman and the sponsor of the bill, huddled after the
committee meeting and decided that we should move forward with our
concerns. Those concerns are reflected in this amendment today.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Torres), to speak about this issue.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking also my
friend, Representative Pearce from New Mexico, for offering this
amendment with me.
Mr. Chair, during our committee work on portions of this bill, I
raised this issue and offered a similar amendment. So I appreciate
Representative Pearce for working with me to improve the bill for
Indian Country.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will
provide some limited, though not complete, legal protection for Indian
Tribes and their water rights. That said, I continue to have grave
concerns with the underlying bill and the impact it will have on Indian
Country.
Even if this amendment is adopted, the underlying bill will cause
significant harm to Indian Country. For example, in title 4 of this
bill, it blocks
[[Page H5530]]
emergency water releases that prevent disease outbreaks for Tribal
fisheries in California's Klamath River. The provision will
significantly increase the risk of widespread fish kills and lead to
tragic losses for Tribal communities.
While this amendment doesn't mitigate all of the negative impacts of
this bill, it will improve the bill somewhat by including an additional
legal protection for Tribal rights that will preserve past, pending, or
future Tribal water rights settlements.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado seek recognition?
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, to speak to the nature of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I am.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from New Mexico noted,
Wayne Aspinall of Colorado stated: ``When you touch water in the West,
you touch everything.''
We have that shared concern that that water is going to be preserved.
In the West, water is a private property right. We have State law. We
have priority-based systems, which have always been recognized by the
Federal Government.
Unfortunately, we have seen and reflected in this portion of the
legislation that we are discussing today, the Federal Government
reaching out to be able to require conditional use of permit water
rights to be signed over to the Federal Government. At issue is the
amendment that we are discussing right now.
When we talk about our Native American Tribes, my colleague and I
have shared in common interest, along with our colleague, Mrs. Torres,
in terms of making sure that Native American rights are protected from
taking by the Federal Government, as well.
There is good news in the underlying bill. The Department of the
Interior had made the statement that their ability to be able to
negotiate or enter into water settlements with Tribes is in no way
affected or restricted by this bill. It is in no way affected or
restricted by this bill, according to the Department of the Interior.
While I have no objections to the changes proposed in the savings
clause to be able to clarify as much, I did want to be able to register
concern on the amendment that it may not have been as definitive as I
would like to have seen in regard to specifying Native American water
rights.
I think that is common ground that we are seeing on both sides of the
aisle: to make sure that those private property rights are protected.
I will not vote against this amendment, and I applaud my colleagues
working together with us to be able to try and achieve an actual
amiable solution on something that, as Westerners, we understand
probably better than anyone else in the country the importance of
water--water for our communities, water for the opportunity for our
communities to be able to grow and to prosper.
On this particular issue, a very important segment of that very
community is the valuable contributions that our Native American Tribes
make to all of our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the overall legislation. In terms
of their work on this, I commend all Members.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate that my colleagues are
trying to help mitigate a small amount of the harm caused by this bill,
but, unfortunately, the underlying bill remains a disaster for Indian
Country.
Title 5 of this bill is a direct attack against the existing rights
of Tribes in my district. As I have said previously, the salmon in the
Klamath River system are the grocery store, the church, the lifeline
for the Tribes in my district, and this bill explicitly prevents
Federal agencies from making emergency water releases to combat fish
disease and prevent massive fish kills that would devastate these
Tribal balance fisheries.
That is important to remember, lest we get too carried away with
whatever curative effects this amendment might have.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, Tribes in New Mexico and across the West
depend on water for agriculture, they depend on it for their families,
they depend on it for spiritual reasons. Without rights, water can be
taken by anyone.
The amendment that Mrs. Torres and I put forward is just trying to
say that rights are personal. They are private property rights, and no
government can take them away. It is a reasonable amendment.
I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's observations. We will
attempt to see that those observations are dealt with in a meaningful
way. In the meantime, I simply ask Members of the House to join with me
in voting for this amendment to H.R. 23.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1830
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5 printed
in part C of House Report 115-212 offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. DeSaulnier) 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 will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 221, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--201
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
LaMalfa
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
[[Page H5531]]
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--221
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Barr
Cheney
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Guthrie
Himes
Johnson, Sam
Khanna
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Scalis
{time} 1852
Messrs. HARPER, GROTHMAN, RUSSELL, CURBELO of Florida, TAYLOR,
MESSER, Mrs. NOEM, Messrs. FORTENBERRY, ROKITA, and BYRNE changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GOTTHEIMER and PRICE of North Carolina changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). 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.
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, 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. 23)
to provide drought relief in the State of California, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 431, 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. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CARBAJAL. 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. Carbajal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 23 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end of title IV, the following:
SEC. 406. WILDFIRE READINESS.
Nothing in this Act shall impair the ability of the
National Interagency Fire Center to ensure that there is an
adequate supply of water to fight wildfires, utilizing water
from reservoirs or other surface waters.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
My request today is simple: to provide our firefighters with the
water they need to effectively fight wildfires. As we speak, two large
wildfires are burning in my district on the central coast of
California. So far, over 40,000 acres of land have burned between the
Alamo fire and the Whittier fire.
With more than a dozen homes and structures of central coast
residents destroyed, we cannot overstate the important and effective
work of hundreds of local, State, and Federal firefighters to contain
these blazes and prevent more damages.
I spoke with incident commanders and toured both burn sites in Santa
Barbara County, witnessing firsthand the incredible damage wreaked by
these fires to our region.
I was grateful for the opportunity to address our firefighters and
first responders and to thank these brave men and women for willing to
risk their own safety to protect infrastructure and save lives.
In one harrowing instance, a firefighter cleared a path, driving a
bulldozer through flaming brush to rescue dozens of Boy Scouts trapped
at a campground at Lake Cachuma.
Today, we have a duty as appropriators to provide these men and
women, working tirelessly in difficult conditions, with the resources
they need to effectively combat these frequent and devastating
wildfires across our country, and especially in my home State.
Ignoring our wildfire response when dealing with water allocation is
irresponsible and will put American lives in danger.
In addition to adopting this simple amendment to ensure our
firefighters' access to water, I urge my colleagues to work to end the
disruptive practice of fire borrowing.
{time} 1900
We cannot continue to rob funds designated for wildfire prevention to
pay for fighting fires and simultaneously expect agencies to carry out
effective land management practices to reduce the impact of
catastrophic wildfires in the future.
Our Federal land management agencies are overwhelmed by the dramatic
increase in fires on public lands in recent years, and we cannot in
good conscience continue to ignore their urgent need for both
prevention and firefighting funding.
I am deeply concerned that this underlying bill today does nothing to
address the issues of limited water resources for our agencies charged
with fighting wildfires.
I call upon my colleagues to adopt this common-sense amendment and
show our firefighters that Congress not only appreciates their efforts,
but acts to support them as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H5532]]
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, my friends' concerns are well placed;
his amendment is completely misplaced.
The fact is that, for 45 years, our environmental laws have made the
management of our forests virtually impossible. After 45 years of
experience with these laws, imposed with the explicit promise they
would improve our forest environment, I think we are entitled to ask:
How is our forest environment doing? And the answer is damning; our
forests are dying.
Timber harvests of surplus timber have fallen 80 percent in those
years. The result is severe overcrowding in our forests. An acre
normally supports between 20 to 100 trees, depending upon the
topography; but because of these laws, average density in the Sierra
has now ballooned to 266 trees per acre.
In this crowded condition, these trees fight for their lives against
other trees trying to occupy the same ground. And in this crowded and
stressed condition, they fall victim to disease, pestilence, drought,
and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire.
The answer is not this amendment that seeks to derail this needed
water storage; it is to restore scientific management to our forests to
restore them to a healthy condition.
When I visited the command center of the Rim Fire several years ago
that threatened Yosemite Valley, I asked the firefighters: What answer
can I take, in your name, back to Congress? And the answer was:
Treatment matters. We need proper forest management.
The good news for my friend from Santa Barbara is he will soon have
the opportunity to vote on just such a bill, the Resilient Federal
Forest Act, by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas. It treats this problem
comprehensively. It passed the House Natural Resources Committee. We
hope to bring it soon to the floor of the House. It will address the
problems that plague our forests by restoring proper scientific
management to our public lands.
Mr. Speaker, 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. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 230, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Barr
Cheney
Cleaver
Courtney
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Guthrie
Hudson
Johnson, Sam
Khanna
Lieu, Ted
Nadler
Napolitano
Scalis
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1909
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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. HUFFMAN. 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 230,
noes 190, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 352]
AYES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
[[Page H5533]]
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Gutierrez
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOT VOTING--13
Barr
Butterfield
Cheney
Cleaver
Courtney
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
Guthrie
Johnson, Sam
Khanna
Lieu, Ted
Napolitano
Scalis
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote).
There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1916
Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
350, No. 351, and No. 352 due to my spouse's health situation in
California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the
DeSaulnier Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Motion to
Recommit. I would have also voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 23--
Gaining Responsibility on Water Act of 2017.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained recognizing the
Military Times Sailor of the Year from Gillette, Wyoming. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 350, ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 351, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 352.
____________________