[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14979-15004]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT

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

                               H.R. 2828

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

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

       TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM

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

 TITLE II--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

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

                         TITLE III--SALTON SEA

Sec. 301. Funding to address Salton Sea.

        TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY OFFICE

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

                  TITLE V--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Rural water supply program.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:

[[Page 14980]]

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

       TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

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

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

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

     SEC. 103. CRITERIA FOR GRANTS.

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

     SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.

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

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Activities and Projects Under This Title.--

[[Page 14981]]

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

     SEC. 106. LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDING.

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

 TITLE II--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

     SEC. 201. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM.

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

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

       (ii) Reduction of agricultural drainage in south Delta 
     channels and other actions necessary to minimize impacts of 
     such drainage on water quality, including but not limited to, 
     design and construction of the relocation of drinking water 
     intake facilities to delta water users. The Secretary shall 
     coordinate actions for relocating intake facilities on a time 
     schedule consistent with subclause (i)(II).
       (iii) Design and construction of lower San Joaquin River 
     floodway improvements.

[[Page 14982]]

       (iv) Installation and operation of temporary barriers in 
     the south Delta until fully operable barriers are 
     constructed.
       (v) Actions to protect navigation and local diversions not 
     adequately protected by the temporary barriers.
       (vi) Actions to increase pumping shall be accomplished in a 
     manner consistent with California law protecting:

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

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

       (vi) Actions at Franks Tract to improve water quality in 
     the Delta.
       (B) North Delta Actions (not to exceed $12,000,000):
       (i) Evaluation and implementation of improved operational 
     procedures for the Delta Cross Channel to address fishery and 
     water quality concerns.
       (ii) Evaluation of a screened through-Delta facility on the 
     Sacramento River.
       (iii) Design and construction of lower Mokelumne River 
     floodway improvements.
       (C) Interties (not to exceed $10,000,000):
       (i) Evaluation and construction of an intertie between the 
     State Water Project and the Central Valley Project facilities 
     at or near the City of Tracy.
       (ii) Assessment of the connection of the Central Valley 
     Project to the State Water Project's Clifton Court Forebay 
     with a corresponding increase in the Forebay's screened 
     intake.
       (D) Evaluation and implementation of the San Luis Reservoir 
     lowpoint improvement project (not to exceed $10,000,000).
       (3) Water use efficiency.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $153,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Water conservation projects that provide water supply 
     reliability, water quality, and ecosystem benefits to the 
     Bay-Delta solution area (not to exceed $61,000,000).
       (B) Technical assistance for urban and agricultural water 
     conservation projects (not to exceed $5,000,000).
       (C) Water recycling and desalination projects, including 
     but not limited to projects identified in the Bay Area Water 
     Recycling Plan and the Southern California Comprehensive 
     Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (not to exceed 
     $84,000,000), as follows:
       (i) In providing financial assistance under this clause, 
     the Secretary shall give priority consideration to projects 
     that include regional solutions to benefit regional water 
     supply and reliability needs.
       (ii) The Secretary shall review any feasibility level 
     studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line 
     projects that have been completed, whether or not those 
     studies were prepared with financial assistance from the 
     Secretary.
       (iii) The Secretary shall report to the Congress within 90 
     days after the completion of a feasibility study or the 
     review of a feasibility study for the purposes of providing 
     design and construction assistance for the construction of 
     desalination and regional brine line projects.
       (iv) The Federal share of the cost of any activity carried 
     out with assistance under this clause may not exceed the 
     lesser of 35 percent of the total cost of the activity or 
     $50,000,000.
       (D) Water measurement and transfer actions (not to exceed 
     $1,500,000).
       (E) Certification of implementation of best management 
     practices for urban water conservation (not to exceed 
     $1,500,000).
       (4) Water transfers.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $3,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Increasing the availability of existing facilities for 
     water transfers.
       (B) Lowering transaction costs through permit streamlining.
       (C) Maintaining a water transfer information clearinghouse.
       (5) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under 
     this Act, no more than $75,000,000 may be expended for 
     implementation of the Environmental Water Account.
       (6) Integrated regional water management plans.--Of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 
     through 2007 under this Act, no more than $95,000,000 may be 
     expended for the following:
       (A) Establishing a competitive grants program to assist 
     local and regional communities in California in developing 
     and implementing integrated regional water management plans 
     to carry out the Objectives and Solution Principles of the 
     CALFED Bay-Delta Program as stated in the Record of Decision.
       (B) Implementation of projects and programs in California 
     that improve water supply reliability, water quality, 
     ecosystem restoration, and flood protection, or meet other 
     local and regional needs, that are consistent with, and make 
     a significant contribution to, Stage 1 of the CALFED Bay-
     Delta Program.
       (7) Ecosystem restoration.--(A) Of the amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under 
     this title, no more than $100,000,000 may be expended for 
     projects under this subsection.
       (B) The Secretary is authorized to undertake the following 
     projects under this paragraph:
       (i) Restoration of habitat in the San Francisco Bay-Delta 
     watershed, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay and Marsh, including 
     tidal wetlands and riparian habitat.
       (ii) Fish screen and fish passage improvement projects.
       (iii) Implementation of an invasive species program, 
     including prevention, control, and eradication.
       (iv) Development and integration of State and Federal 
     agricultural programs that benefit wildlife into the 
     Ecosystem Restoration Program.
       (v) Financial and technical support for locally-based 
     collaborative programs to restore habitat while addressing 
     the concerns of local communities.
       (vi) Water quality improvement projects to manage salinity, 
     selenium, mercury, pesticides, trace metals, dissolved 
     oxygen, turbidity, sediment, and other pollutants.
       (vii) Land and water acquisitions to improve habitat and 
     fish spawning and survival in the Bay-Delta watershed.
       (viii) Integrated flood management and levee protection 
     projects for improving ecosystem restoration.
       (ix) Scientific evaluations and targeted research on 
     program activities, including appropriate use of adaptive 
     management concepts.
       (x) Preparation of management plans for all properties 
     acquired, and update current management plans, prior to the 
     purchase or any contribution to the purchase of any interest 
     in land for ecosystem.
       (xi) Strategic planning and tracking of program performance 
     using established protocols and/or bio-indicators.
       (C) Project Initiation Report for each project, describing 
     project purpose, objective, and cost, shall be transmitted to 
     Congress following Secretarial certification, 30 days (not 
     including days on which either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of 
     more than three calendar days to a day certain) prior to 
     implementing ecosystem restoration actions as described under 
     this paragraph. Such reports shall be required for all 
     ecosystem projects, (including comprehensive projects that 
     are composed of several components and are to be completed by 
     staged implementation) exceeding $20,000 in Federal funds. 
     Annual ecosystem restoration project summary reports shall be 
     submitted to Congress through the Secretary highlighting 
     progress of the project implementation. The reports required 
     to be submitted under this paragraph shall consider the 
     following on each project:
       (i) A description of ecological monitoring data to be 
     collected for the restoration projects and how the data are 
     to be integrated, streamlined, compatible, and designed to 
     measure overall trends of ecosystem health in the Bay-Delta 
     watershed.
       (ii) Whether the restoration project has integrated 
     monitoring plans and descriptions of protocols, or bio-
     indicators, to be used for gauging cost-effective performance 
     of the project.
       (iii) Whether the proposed project is a part of a larger, 
     more comprehensive restoration project in a particular part 
     of the solution area, and if so, how the proposed project 
     contributes to the larger project.
       (iv) A secretarial determination, or strategy, that 
     utilizes existing Federal land, State land, or other land 
     acquired for ecosystem restoration, with amounts provided by 
     the United States or the State, to the extent that such lands 
     are available within the CALFED solution area.
       (v) A determination of the potential cumulative impacts, or 
     induced damages of fee title, easement, and/or lease 
     acquisition of land on local and regional economies, and 
     adjacent land and landowners; and a description of how such 
     impacts will be mitigated.
       (vi) A description of actions that will be taken to 
     mitigate any induced damages from the conversion of 
     agriculture land including the degree to which wildlife and 
     habitat values will increase due to the land conversion.
       (D) Conditions, if applicable, for projects and activities 
     under this paragraph are as follows:
       (i) A requirement that before obligating or expending 
     Federal funds to acquire land, the Secretary shall first 
     determine that existing Federal land, State land, or other 
     land acquired for ecosystem restoration with amounts provided 
     by the United States or the State, to the extent such lands 
     are available, is not available for that purpose. If no 
     public land is available the Secretary, prior to any federal 
     expenditure for private land acquisition, shall--
       (I) make an accounting of all habitat types located on 
     publicly owned land throughout the solution area;
       (II) not convert prime farm land and unique farm land, to 
     the maximum extent as practicable, as identified by local, 
     State, or Federal land use inventories, including the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service;
       (III) not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture 
     use; and

[[Page 14983]]

       (IV) not involve other changes in existing environment due 
     to location and nature of converting farmland to non-farmland 
     use.
       (ii) A requirement that in determining whether to acquire 
     private land for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall--
       (I) conduct appropriate analysis, including cost valuation 
     to assure that private land acquisitions prioritize easements 
     and leases over acquisition by fee title unless easements and 
     leases are unavailable or unsuitable for the stated purposes;
       (II) consider the potential cumulative impacts on the local 
     and regional economies of transferring the property into 
     government ownership and--

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

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

       (III) mitigate any potential induced damage, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, of any conversion of agriculture land for 
     ecosystem restoration due to the implementation of the CALFED 
     Bay-Delta Program; and
       (IV) partner with landowners and local agencies to develop 
     cooperating landowner commitments that are likely to meet 
     coequal objectives of achieving local economic and social 
     goals and implementing the ecosystem restoration goals.
       (8) Watersheds.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Building local capacity to assess and manage watersheds 
     affecting the Bay-Delta solution area.
       (B) Technical assistance for watershed assessments and 
     management plans.
       (C) Developing and implementing locally-based watershed 
     conservation, maintenance, and restoration actions.
       (9) Water quality.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Addressing drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley 
     to improve downstream water quality, including habitat 
     restoration projects that reduce drainage and improve water 
     quality, provided that--
       (i) a plan is in place for monitoring downstream water 
     quality improvements;
       (ii) State and local agencies are consulted on the 
     activities to be funded; and
       (iii) this clause is not intended to create any right, 
     benefit, or privilege.
       (B) Implementing source control programs in the Bay-Delta 
     watershed.
       (C) Developing recommendations through technical panels and 
     advisory council processes to meet the CALFED Bay-Delta 
     Program goal of continuous improvement in water quality for 
     all uses.
       (D) Investing in treatment technology demonstration 
     projects.
       (E) Controlling runoff into the California aqueduct and 
     other similar conveyances.
       (F) Addressing water quality problems at the North Bay 
     Aqueduct.
       (G) Studying recirculation of export water to reduce 
     salinity and improve dissolved oxygen in the San Joaquin 
     River.
       (H) Projects that may meet the Objectives and Solution 
     Principles of the water quality component of CALFED Bay-Delta 
     Program.
       (I) Development of water quality exchanges and other 
     programs to make high quality water available to urban areas.
       (J) Development and implementation of a plan to meet all 
     existing water quality standards for which the State and 
     Federal water projects have responsibility.
       (10) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $70,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Assisting local reclamation districts in reconstructing 
     Delta levees to a base level of protection not to exceed 
     $20,000,000.
       (B) Enhancing the stability of levees that have particular 
     importance in the system through the Delta Levee Special 
     Improvement Projects program not to exceed $20,000,000.
       (C) Developing best management practices to control and 
     reverse land subsidence on islands in the Bay-Delta watershed 
     (not to exceed $1,000,000).
       (D) Refining the Delta Emergency Management Plan (not to 
     exceed $1,000,000).
       (E) Developing a Delta Risk Management Strategy after 
     assessing the consequences of failure levees in the Bay-Delta 
     watershed from floods, seepage, subsidence, and earthquakes 
     (not to exceed $500,000).
       (F) Developing a strategy for reuse of dredged materials on 
     islands in the Bay-Delta watershed (not to exceed 
     $1,500,000).
       (G) Evaluating and, where appropriate, rehabilitating the 
     Suisun Marsh levees (not to exceed $6,000,000).
       (H) Integrated flood management, ecosystem restoration, and 
     levee protection projects, including design and construction 
     of lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne River floodway 
     improvements and other projects under the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Comprehensive Study (not to exceed $20,000,000).
       (11) Monitoring and analysis.--Of the amounts authorized to 
     be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 under this 
     Act, no more than $50,000,000 may be expended for the 
     following:
       (A) Establishing and maintaining an independent technical 
     board, technical panels, and standing boards to provide 
     oversight and peer review of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
       (B) Conducting expert evaluations and scientific 
     assessments of all CALFED Bay-Delta Program elements.
       (C) Coordinating existing monitoring and scientific 
     research programs.
       (D) Developing and implementing adaptive management 
     experiments to test, refine, and improve technical 
     understandings.
       (E) Establishing performance measures and monitoring and 
     valuating the performance of all CALFED Bay-Delta Program 
     elements.
       (F) Preparing an annual science report.
       (12) Program management, oversight, and coordination.--Of 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2007 under this Act, no more than $25,000,000 
     may be expended by the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     State, for the following:
       (A) CALFED Bay-Delta Program-wide tracking of schedules, 
     finances, and performance.
       (B) Multi-agency oversight and coordination of CALFED Bay-
     Delta Program activities to ensure program balance and 
     integration.
       (C) Development of interagency cross-cut budgets and a 
     comprehensive finance plan to allocate costs in accordance 
     with the beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of 
     Decision.
       (D) Coordination of public outreach and involvement, 
     including tribal, environmental justice, and public advisory 
     activities under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
       (E) Development of annual reports.
       (13) Diversification of water supplies.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 
     2007 under this Act, no more than $30,000,000 may be expended 
     to diversify sources of level 2 refuge supplies and modes of 
     delivery to refuges and to acquire additional water for level 
     4 refuge supplies.
       (e) Authorized Actions.--The Secretary and the Federal 
     agency heads are authorized to carry out the activities 
     authorized by this title through the use of grants, loans, 
     contracts, and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-
     Federal entities where the Secretary or Federal agency head 
     determines that the grant, loan, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement is likely to assist in implementing the authorized 
     activity in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective manner.

     SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT.

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

     SEC. 203. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE REPORT.

       (a) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall 
     submit a report of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     December 15 of each year thereafter to the appropriate 
     authorizing and appropriating Committees of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives that describes the status and 
     projected implementation schedule of all components through 
     fiscal year 2008 of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Report 
     shall contain the following:
       (1) Statement of balance.--The report shall identify the 
     progress in each of the categories listed in paragraph (2). 
     The Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall 
     prepare and certify a statement of whether the program is in 
     balance taking into consideration the following:

[[Page 14984]]

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

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 205. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

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

     SEC. 206. USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND FUNDS.

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

     SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

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

                         TITLE III--SALTON SEA

     SEC. 301. FUNDING TO ADDRESS SALTON SEA.

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

        TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY OFFICE

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

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

     SEC. 402. ACCEPTANCE AND EXPENDITURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

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

                  TITLE V--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish a 
     program to plan, design, and construct rural water systems in 
     coordination with other Federal agencies with

[[Page 14985]]

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

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

                               H.R. 2828

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

    TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (aa) deliveries to, costs of, and water suppliers and water 
     users, including but not limited to, agricultural users, that 
     have historically relied on water diverted for use in the 
     Delta; and
       (bb) the quality of water for existing municipal, 
     industrial, and agricultural uses.

[[Page 14986]]

       (ii) North delta actions.--In the case of the North Delta, 
     activities under this clause consist of--

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

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

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

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

       (I) A recirculation program to provide flow, reduce 
     salinity concentrations in the San Joaquin River, and reduce 
     the reliance on New Melones Reservoir for meeting water 
     quality and fishery flow objectives through the use of excess 
     capacity in export pumping and conveyance facilities.
       (II) The implementation of mandatory source control 
     programs and best drainage management practices to reduce 
     discharges into the San Joaquin River of salt or other 
     constituents from wildlife refuges that receive Central 
     Valley Project water.
       (III) The acquisition from willing sellers of water from 
     streams tributary to the San Joaquin River or other sources 
     to provide flow, dilute discharges from wildlife refuges, and 
     to improve water quality in the San Joaquin River below the 
     confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin rivers and to reduce 
     the reliance on New Melones Reservoir for meeting water 
     quality and fishery flow objectives.

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

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

       (iv) water measurement and transfer actions;
       (v) certification of implementation of best management 
     practices for urban water conservation; and
       (vi) projects identified in the Southern California 
     Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, dated April 
     2001 and authorized by section 1606 of the Reclamation 
     Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 
     U.S.C. 390h-4); and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water 
     Recycling Program described in the San Francisco Bay Area 
     Regional Water Recycling Program Recycled Water Master Plan, 
     dated December 1999 and authorized by section 1611 of the 
     Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-9) are determined to be feasible.
       (D) Water transfers.--Activities under this subparagraph 
     consist of--
       (i) increasing the availability of existing facilities for 
     water transfers;
       (ii) lowering transaction costs through regulatory 
     coordination as provided in sections 301 through 302; and
       (iii) maintaining a water transfer information 
     clearinghouse.
       (E) Integrated regional water management plans.--Activities 
     under this subparagraph consist of assisting local and 
     regional communities in the State in developing and 
     implementing integrated regional water management plans to 
     carry out projects and programs that improve water supply 
     reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and flood 
     protection, or meet other local and regional needs, in a 
     manner that is consistent with, and makes a significant 
     contribution to, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
       (F) Ecosystem restoration.--
       (i) Activities under this subparagraph consist of--

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

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

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

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

       (I) a requirement that before obligating or expending 
     Federal funds to acquire land, the Secretary shall first 
     determine that existing Federal land, State land, or other 
     land acquired for ecosystem restoration with amounts provided 
     by the United States or the State, to the extent such

[[Page 14987]]

     lands are available within the Calfed solution area, is not 
     available for that purpose. If no public land is available 
     the Secretary, prior to any federal expenditure for private 
     land acquisitions, shall--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14988]]

       (vi) development of Annual Reports.

     SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT.

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

     SEC. 105. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

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

     SEC. 106. CROSSCUT BUDGET.

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

     SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

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

     SEC. 108. USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND FUNDS.

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

     SEC. 109. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

       Nothing in this title--
       (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an 
     interstate compact governing water;
       (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by

[[Page 14989]]

     past or future interstate compacts or final judicial 
     allocations;
       (3) preempts or modifies any State or Federal law or 
     interstate compact governing water quality or disposal; or
       (4) confers on any non-federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.

     SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

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

 TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY COORDINATION OFFICES

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES.

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

     SEC. 202. ACCEPTANCE AND EXPENDITURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

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

                 TITLE III--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

     SEC. 301. RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM.

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

                   TITLE IV--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM

     SEC. 401. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

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

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. R. 2828.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is a 
giant step forward in resolving California's water supply problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased today to support the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), on this historic legislation. 
For over 10 years we have been trying to move this process forward to 
develop a comprehensive water plan to benefit all of California, and 
this legislation does just that.
  This legislation addresses the water needs of California by bringing 
adversaries together for the first time on many of these issues.
  For over 30 years, sides have not resolved the Sacramento/San Joaquin 
Bay-Delta water quality issues. This legislation includes a historic 
agreement between these parties to once and for all improve water 
quality by addressing many concerns in the Delta and its tributaries.
  By improving water quality, everybody benefits. Improved water 
quality in the Delta means better drinking water for our cities, better 
water for our farmers, and better water quality for our fish. This bill 
provides the Secretary with a variety of tools to address this very 
serious issue, including the purchase of water from voluntary sellers 
to meet water quality standards. It also gives direction for the 
implementation of an operational plan for the New Melones Reservoir 
that will rely on the best available science and coordinate releases to 
benefit both the fisheries and the water quality for municipal and 
agricultural users.
  This bill increases California's water supply through water 
reclamation and recycling projects, water storage, better operation, 
and the coordination of Federal and State projects, and the development 
of water conservation projects that benefit all of California. With an 
ever-increasing demand for water in the State of California, there is a 
need to move all of the projects of every type forward quickly and 
efficiently, and this bill does that.
  I again want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert) on the great work that he did on this bill, and the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for working with her 
subcommittee chairman to make this work. I appreciate all that she put 
in to make this a good bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman and 
the sponsor of H.R. 2828, for his tireless work to keep the CALFED 
authorization moving forward, and also the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Pombo) for his unwavering support.
  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I have had 
the privilege of working with the chairman on many water issues. His 
commitment to a fair and open legislative process is indeed very 
commendable.
  The State of California needs a more reliable water supply; we can 
all agree on that. We now face, like many other States, severe 
restrictions specifically on the use of the Colorado River, and we must 
reduce our water use to meet the terms of the Colorado River Compact.
  The gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) and others on our

[[Page 14990]]

committee are well aware of my strong support for water recycling, 
desalinization, and groundwater cleanup projects. With H.R. 2828, the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) has raised the importance 
of these projects to unprecedented levels. He deserves our combined 
thanks and our support for his commitment.
  Efficient water use, water recycling, ground water treatment, new 
storage, and desalinization projects are all critically important if we 
in Southern California are to succeed in our effort to cut back our use 
of the Colorado River. With increased emphasis on using water more 
efficiently, we can increase our available water supply by more than 
half a million acre feet of water per year, and we can do it cheaply 
and quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, by working together, we have taken a huge step forward 
towards authorizing the CALFED program. The gentlemen from California 
(Chairman Pombo) and (Chairman Calvert) and their staffs have 
cooperated with us fully, and we have together made many improvements 
to this legislation. I look forward to continuing our progress on 
CALFED as we move this bill towards the White House. I urge all of my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert). Putting this bill together has been very 
difficult and has taken a number of years. He and his staff and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and his staff have done an 
outstanding job.
  I remember when CALFED was first unleashed, and it was I think in 
1996, and it was done in an appropriations bill. So, really, this is 
the first proper authorization that we have actually had, and it has 
been a long time in coming.
  It has been mentioned that this bill brings balance between the 
ecological work that has been done, which has received almost all of 
the focus and all of the funding, and balance for water yield. Yield 
means water that is available in critically dry years, that is reliably 
available; and this bill emphasizes that and creates studies and 
commences processes that will produce what is needed to meet the 
growing needs of our State.
  This bill also subjects to accountability everything that is going on 
in CALFED. These projects have been going on for nearly 10 years; and 
yet there has been very little accountability.

                              {time}  1200

  Now we will have the accountability that we need so that the Congress 
can assess what is working and what is not, and so that Congress can 
also assure that we are meeting all the objectives of CALFED, not just 
some.
  I also wish to draw attention to the limitation on the water use fees 
that are contained in the report accompanying this bill that provides 
that only direct beneficiaries of projects benefiting the Bay Delta 
region will be subject to the beneficiary pays provision. This means 
that upstream water users who participate in projects to improve the 
region are not subject to fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the 
project. In addition, this legislation does not authorize the creation 
of a broad-based fee or tax for water users. Any fee or tax that is 
developed will be directly proportional to the benefit received from 
specific projects authorized by the program.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and appreciate the cooperation we 
have had. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for 
her work and her staff and commend everyone for finally being able to 
bring this great package together. Everyone who cares about water and 
the future in California should be supporting this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the CALFED process is an unprecedented 
undertaking and one that is crucial to the water security of all people 
in California, both northern and southern, urban and rural. That is why 
we need a balanced reauthorization bill that respects the hard work 
done over the past years by all CALFED stakeholders in the blueprint 
record of decision agreed upon in 2000.
  I fear that H.R. 2828 does not achieve the delicate balance necessary 
because of the preauthorization of the dam projects that are 
controversial in their communities and among the stakeholders. So I 
would urge that H.R. 2828 be opposed and that the motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that would correct the 
preauthorization provision be supported.
  However, I do want to give credit to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano) and to all who have worked on this, because I am 
confident that once we get through this process in working with our 
Senators who have a parallel effort that avoids the flaw in this bill, 
that we will end up with a bill that all of us support. It is important 
that the CALFED process move forward.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I make a statement about this bill, I want to 
also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano) for all her great work on this bill. She has spent many 
hours and days traveling across the State of California. I think we 
probably were in most congressional districts throughout California as 
this process took place. Certainly I thank her for her great work in 
this legislation.
  This bill represents great progress in helping solve the water 
problems of the west by making California more self-reliant and 
carefully using its own water supply. We have come a long way over the 
last few years. The Subcommittee on Water and Power conducted three 
field hearings in California, a legislative hearing, two mark-ups, and 
too many meetings to count to get where we are today.
  Individually, many of the members of our committee have helped to 
shepherd often contentious quantification settlement agreements, for 
instance, that was delayed, but we finally came to a decisive 
conclusion. My friends in the upper-lower basin States should know that 
this bill today is another positive step in California weaning itself 
from historically overdrafting the Colorado River.
  As we have found with the plumbing in California's water system, 
everything in the world of water is related to everything else. Thus, 
achievements like the quantification settlement agreement helped us 
conclude the carefully balanced agreement on CALFED that we have before 
us today. Water is not and should not be a partisan issue. I worked 
constructively with the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), Senator Feinstein, as I mentioned, the 
ranking Democratic member; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza); of course, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller); and the full committee ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and many, many more to make 
sure this bill before us is a consensus that I believe that it is.
  I am proud to have many Democratic members of the Committee on 
Resources supporting this bill. The original intent of CALFED was to 
provide balance to a complex water delivery system, to ensure that 
everybody gets better together. That is what this bill does. H.R. 2828 
simply and truly means that the environment, recreation, drinking 
water, agriculture and industries gets better together.
  As our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo) said, This bill makes historic strides in water quality 
improvements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Improved water 
quality helps everyone across the board. We have also created

[[Page 14991]]

new water supplies for southern California through my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Napolitano) water recycling 
amendment, and we enhanced surface storage to improve water quality for 
families in our colleagues' district in the Bay area and beyond as 
evidenced by the support of such water districts as the Northern 
California Water District, Contra Costa Water District, Central Contra 
Water District and many others.
  We have created a right to know provision by making Federal agencies 
report how they will spend the money. Congress and the American 
taxpayer deserve government accountability and this bill provides it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House 
and the Senate to bring ultimate resolution to this bipartisan effort. 
Our bill includes and supports a diverse approach to solving our water 
problems, including conservation, reclamation, desalinization, 
conjunctive use, ground water storage and, of course, surface storage 
options that have been carefully studied and negotiated down to the 
bare minimum.
  We have made significant progress and we can see the light at the end 
of the tunnel. With today's vote, we will pass this bill and we will 
make that light shine even brighter. I urge support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the terrific work they have done in 
crafting this legislation.
  Obviously, one of the greatest challenges we face in California and, 
indeed, the entire west, is how do we provide adequate water for all of 
our needs, whether they be consumptive needs, as well as the 
environment. And this legislation is a step forward to providing 
greater certainty that in the future we will have the water resources 
that are needed for the expanding population. We will have the water 
resources that are needed for our agriculture sector as well as our 
industrial sector. Most importantly, it also ensures that we are going 
to provide the protection that our environment needs.
  This legislation is clearly something that is going to meet the needs 
of all the citizens of California. And while there are some of our 
colleagues in California that do not think this is a perfect piece of 
legislation, I would agree with them that it might not be perfect but 
it would be foolhardy for us to not allow this legislation to move 
forward so that we could eventually see a compromise and a final 
consensus developed that will, in fact, contribute to the needs of 
California.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2828, the Water 
Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act and commend the 
leadership of my subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert and Ranking Member 
Grace Napolitano for bringing this important legislation to its place 
on the floor today.
   I also want to recognize the very significant role that the senior 
Senator from California has played in developing and moving a 
counterpart bill in the Senate on a parallel track, paving the way for 
a bill to become law later this year.
   This bipartisan water bill has been long in the making. Federal 
authorization for funding the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, commonly 
referred to as CALFED, expired in 2000--the same year that a consortium 
of Federal and State agencies issued a Record of Decision (ROD) setting 
forth a 30-year plan for CALFED.
   Since 2000, various versions of reauthorizing legislation have been 
under consideration by the Congress. Until today, however, none of the 
earlier versions was able to reach the House floor.
   The fact that today we finally have a bipartisan CALFED bill on the 
House floor reflects the long and arduous process of seeking input, 
balancing interests and making compromises. Many, many stakeholders 
were consulted in the development of this bill, including 
representatives of agricultural, urban, environmental, fishery, and 
business interests. None of them are likely to say that this is the 
``perfect'' bill from their individual perspectives. But the bill we 
now have before us represents a constructive effort to forge a 
thoughtful and balanced approach to the management of California's 
water supplies. It deserves our support today.
   A sound bill when it was introduced last year, H.R. 2828 improved 
when it was marked up by the Resources Committee on May 5, and several 
provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill were incorporated. Additional 
refinements to the legislative language have been included in today's 
managers' amendment, enhancing the prospects for an expeditious 
conference with the Senate and enactment this year.
   Many in this body are aware of the legal conflicts and tensions that 
have evolved over the years on California water issues. The intent of 
this bill is to reduce those conflicts and tensions by providing 
guidance and authority for improving water supply reliability and water 
quality, while at the same time enhancing the environment. The bill 
recognizes the CALFED 2000 Record of Decision as the framework for 
implementing the program, and ensures that implementation moves ahead 
on a balanced basis.
  There are many important provisions in the bill. I will comment on 
only a few of them.
  For those of us in the Central Valley of California, this bill 
provides important assurances of improved conveyance of water supplies 
through the Delta. It authorizes evaluation and construction of much-
needed new barriers and interties. It also recognizes the importance of 
improving drainage in south Delta channels to minimize impact on 
drinking water quality. It thus requires implementation of a program to 
meet water quality standards in the San Joaquin River and the Delta 
prior to increased pumping or deliveries.
  The bill is designed to give the Secretary more flexibility in 
meeting water quality standards in the Delta while reducing the 
reliance on the New Melones Project for meeting water quality and fish 
flows standards. To help meet this goal, the Secretary is authorized to 
use a variety of tools, including the purchase of water from willing 
sellers on the tributaries of the San Joaquin River. The legislation 
further allows the Secretary to use the CVP Restoration Fund to help 
pay for these water purchases and other designated actions.
  It is important to recognize that water purchases and the use of the 
Restoration Fund monies are merely tools that the Secretary may use to 
achieve a goal. They are not mandates that supercede existing water 
rights or water supply contracts or replace existing Restoration Fund 
priorities. The Program to Meet Standards created by H.R. 2828 does not 
give the Secretary any new authority to acquire or re-allocate water 
from anyone but willing sellers.
  On another issue--that of cost allocation--the Committee report on 
H.R. 2828 makes clear that the costs of implementing the CALFED program 
are to be allocated in a way that relates directly to benefits to be 
received. This ``beneficiaries pay'' principle precludes the imposition 
of water-use fee, tax or surcharge that would force water agencies or 
individuals to pay for CALFED projects or programs from which they do 
not benefit. Nothing in this legislation provides the basis for the 
imposition of such a fee or tax.
  Some critics of this bill are claiming that it cedes congressional 
authority over water storage projects. I wish to make it clear that 
such a claim is not true.
  The bill does give the Secretary blanket authority under the 
framework of the CALFED program to undertake feasibility studies for 
water storage projects. Such an authorization makes sense, given the 
fact that a Record of Decision for the CALFED program has already been 
issued and the extensive Federal-State-stakeholder consultation process 
within CALFED itself provides for due deliberation of project 
proposals.
  If as a result of a specific feasibility study, the Secretary 
determines that a particular project is indeed feasible, the Secretary 
cannot simply move ahead, but first must submit a report to Congress 
identifying project benefits and beneficiaries and a cost allocation 
plan. Congress then has 120 legislative days--not calendar days, but 
legislative days--to consider the report and recommendation, and pass a 
disapproval resolution if we disagree with the Secretary's 
recommendation. Such a disapproval resolution procedure, as we all 
know, is not an uncommon procedure for congressional oversight of 
proposed administration actions. In addition to the 120-day layover 
period, congressional approval through the enactment of appropriations 
for the project must occur. We all know this is no small step.
  So the bill does delegate more authority to the Secretary at the 
beginning of the feasibility process, enabling proposals to be explored

[[Page 14992]]

and developed on an expeditious basis, but still retains the ultimate 
congressional authority to stop any particular water storage project as 
well as to determine its appropriations, if any. This process is thus a 
bit streamlined from the existing procedures for water storage 
projects. However, it provides adequate safeguards for congressional 
prerogatives while enhancing the expeditious consideration of worthy 
project proposals.
  Before closing, I wish to thank the staff of the Water and Power 
Subcommittee, on both sides of the aisle, for their hard work and 
cooperation in helping us arrive to this point today. Their openness 
and professionalism are deeply appreciated by me and my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is long overdue. If we are 
to have any chance of CALFED being reauthorized in this session of 
Congress, we must pass this bill today and forward it to the Senate for 
its consideration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote 
``aye.''
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, in California, wine is for drinking and 
water is for fighting. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) have done a Herculean job task of putting 
together all the interests in California in a water bill that is 
supported by just about every interest group out there, and that was an 
incredible task. That is why I am a proud co-sponsor and supporter of 
H.R. 2828.
  The central valley of California comprises the largest agriculture 
producing county in the Nation, where over 250 of California's crops 
are grown. With its fertile soil and temperate climate, the valley 
produces 8 percent of the ag output of the United States on less than 1 
percent of the Nation's total farmland. Valley farmers alone grow 
nearly half the fresh fruits and vegetables grown in the entire Nation.
  The most fundamental challenge facing California's Central Valley is 
assuring adequate long term supplies of water to meet the demands of 
the agriculture, environmental and urban water needs. A dependable and 
affordable water supply is necessary to meet the long term needs of the 
State. The key to providing this water supply is adequate storage 
facilities to hold water in times of surplus for use during water 
shortages.
  With H.R. 2828, California will have a more reliable and efficient 
water supply, and water throughout the west will be more stable because 
California will have the tools necessary to provide for its own water. 
Specifically, among other projects, H.R. 2828 allows for the continued 
storage studies in the Upper San Joaquin River and will provide 
critical water storage in the region that I represent.
  The legislation also makes progress towards balance in CALFED Bay 
Delta program by underscoring the need for new surface storage 
facilities, as well as ensuring improved water quality and providing 
continued support for ecosystem restoration activities.
  There are a few provisions which I would like to clarify in the 
Record if I may. The first of these pertains to CALFED fees. H.R. 2828 
sanctions the principle of beneficiary pays, and I support this 
standard. This means exactly what it says. Those who benefit from a 
CALFED project or program should pay for what they receive. It also 
means that those who do not benefit from CALFED programs and projects 
should not have to pay for the fees.
  The legislation does not authorize or impose water diversion fees, 
charges or taxes on CALFED beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Such 
charges go against the beneficiaries pay principle of this bill and the 
CALFED record of decision, and this is the clear intention of the House 
Committee on Resources when it reported H.R. 2828.
  The second issue I would like to clarify is the new program to meet 
standards which was created to give added flexibility to the Secretary 
of the Interior to meet existing water quality standard in the Delta. 
For the record, I wanted to state that nothing in H.R. 2828 requires 
water users in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries to provide 
more water or more money than they are currently providing to meet 
existing water quality standards and fishery objectives. Nothing in the 
legislation authorizes the Secretary to make involuntary acquisitions 
of water from the central valley project contractors or water rights 
holders on the tributaries of the San Joaquin.
  Finally, nothing in the bill gives the program to meet standards a 
higher priority to receive funding for the restoration fund than 
existing programs and projects supported by the fund.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
passage of H.R. 2828.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2828, the Water 
Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act known as the 
CALFED, a historical giant step in improving the quantity and quality 
of water in California.
  CALFED is a State and Federal partnership formed to increase water 
storage and improve water reliability. It is crucial to the future of 
the home of the State of California. Without clean water or enough 
water, there can be no development of jobs and housing, I state no 
development of jobs and housing. And without clean water, my children, 
my grandchildren or any child cannot enjoy normal, healthy lives.
  I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. I commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). I commend the minority leader, 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano). I am also proud that 
this legislation includes the environmental justice language that I 
promoted. This bill states that environmental justice a goal of CALFED, 
making sure that everyone, regardless of race or income deserves the 
same protections for environment and health hazards.
  I recommend and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. 
CALFED provides a means to respond to rapid population growths, 
especially in my area, in my district. California deserves to have a 
good quality of water and a good quantity of water. And it will help 
the State of California improve.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to again extend congratulations, as I 
did earlier, to my colleagues. I have lived in California since I was a 
freshman in college since 1971. I remember very vividly during the past 
3 decades the constant struggle that has gone on between north and 
south over this issue of water, the battles over the Colorado River 
water. And this notion of coming to some kind of reconciliation on a 
partnership between the State of California and the Federal Government 
is something that many believed could never ever happen.
  Because of the leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), working under the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) as chairman of the Committee on Resources, and closely with 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), and I have seen so 
many Californians involved in this debate here on the House floor. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) was speaking earlier, and I 
saw the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) talking, and I know we 
have a couple of people in our delegation who are not on board.
  But the fact of the matter is we have been able to, I believe, bring 
together an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans from 
California to deal with this very important and pressing need.
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, there are 35 million people in our State. And 
I know that there are a lot of people around here who are not as crazy 
about California as those of us who represent it, but the fact of the 
matter is, California, is the largest State in our union, and virtually 
everyone around the country has some kind of tie to California.

                              {time}  1215

  So it is important for us to, as a body and as a government, address 
this very

[[Page 14993]]

important need; and so I thank, again, my friend, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano), who has worked so tirelessly. I was very 
honored to be at a water treatment facility that we have had as we 
worked together to deal with groundwater contamination in the area that 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and I represent with 
the discovery of per chlorate, which has created very serious problems. 
We have come together in a bipartisan way to address water issues, and 
passage of this legislation is going to be a great testament to the 
bipartisanship of our delegation.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge also 
the great work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the 
chairman, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the 
ranking member, for their tireless efforts in bringing about a much-
needed piece of legislation. These two leaders have done a yeoman's job 
for us in bringing H.R. 2828, and they have come to my district many 
times to hold hearings on this issue of water.
  I would like to specifically thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for including the strong water use efficiency section in H.R. 
2828. This section will meet my community's strong demand for water 
supply and reliability, not by taking more water from the Bay-Delta 
ecosystem, not taking more water from the Colorado River in our 
neighboring States, but from recycling and cleaning up Southern 
California's existing water supply and investing in sea water 
desalination projects.
  H.R. 2828 specifically clarifies that in addition to recycling and 
desalination projects, groundwater cleanup projects for contaminants 
such as per chlorate, nitrates, and volatile organic compounds will 
qualify for CALFED program funding.
  Continued Federal investment in desalination technology, such as the 
one in Long Beach, will verify and further develop energy savings and 
optimize the process so that it can be enlarged and duplicated 
throughout the United States.
  The Long Beach Water Department's desalination pilot plant is on the 
cutting edge, and I am looking forward to seeing this technology fully 
developed.
  Again, I support and commend these two for their outstanding work.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my short time to 
address all those Members of the House of Representatives who are not 
from California. They do create a majority in this body after all.
  We have a rather unique situation with the chairman of the full 
committee from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee from 
California, and the chairman of the subcommittee from California; but 
that is not what is important.
  What is important for my colleagues not from California to understand 
is this is a State of more than 30 million people that has a 
significant impact on the economy of the United States and, frankly, 
the quality of life in the United States.
  In the 1930s, the Federal Government began developing the water 
resources on the east side of California. Californians in the 1960s 
took the responsibility on themselves to build a multi-billion dollar 
water project on the west side of California.
  They have been discussing CALFED. The State and the Federal 
Government water projects have never been coordinated, and the 
resources of California have never been maximized for the benefit both 
of the environment and the economy and individuals.
  Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), 
talked about the fact that as other States, Arizona and others in the 
area of the Colorado River, have gained population, California is using 
a source of water that we have relied on for a long time. This is the 
first time that we have not had a partisan fight; that we are not going 
to have a regional fight; and that California has come together to 
begin to solve the water problems of the largest State in the Union.
  I would ask my colleagues, if they are not from California, witness 
the bipartisanship, witness finally in California the understanding 
that north and south need to work together, and please, give us a 
strong vote on this legislation which is important to California and 
important to the United States.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise in opposition to the 
bill as it currently is constructed; and as a Californian, I fully 
understand the urgent need to pass legislation to reauthorize CALFED; 
but if we fail to reauthorize this program, we will sacrifice millions 
of dollars scheduled to go to important water infrastructure projects. 
But in its current form, this legislation will jeopardize the delicate 
balance of water interests in California that we have worked so hard to 
achieve and make it more difficult for us to reauthorize CALFED.
  Instead of codifying the Record of Decision that was agreed to in the 
CALFED process, this bill disrupts the balance that it created. This 
bill sets the dangerous precedent of authorizing large-scale projects 
before they have undergone comprehensive review and analysis. The 
preauthorization language is bad policy and bad politics.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I will offer a motion to recommit this 
bill that would strip the preauthorization language from the 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the motion so that we can 
pass a CALFED bill this year and get it signed by the President.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself what time I may consume for 
a short comment.
  Congressional approval of water projects from planning through 
construction is not a new concept. The Corps of Engineers has authority 
through the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, to implement 
projects following a favorable Chief's, or some people call it 
feasibility, report.
  Through WRDA, Congress approves projects from planning through 
construction, subject to the conditions stated in a favorable Chief's 
report. Numerous examples of the corps' projects can be found in WRDA 
1996, WRDA 1999, and WRDA 2000 which authorize construction following a 
favorable Chief's report.
  In the last three WRDAs, over 50 projects were approved from planning 
through construction, with conditional authorization subject to a 
favorable Chief's report. New projects were conditionally authorized, 
and there were additional project modifications that were conditionally 
authorized.
  WRDA projects conditionally authorized included the Bel Marin Keys 
Unit, California, well over $100 million; Kill Van Kull, New York and 
New Jersey navigation project, $325 million authorization to $750 
million; the Savannah Harbor Expansion navigation project $230 million, 
and I can go on and on and on.
  Are my colleagues saying we should replace the 120-day congressional 
authorization which is in the present bill with extensively used WRDA 
language that Congress has accepted and continues to support?
  H.R. 2828 includes provisions that approve water recycling projects 
from planning through construction which was proposed by the Southern 
California Democrats. By the way, these four projects that are in this 
bill are in the Record of Decision which has been negotiated over the 
years, as all my friends know, and a very difficult negotiation, to 
bring this process of CALFED in a balanced manner forward.
  So I would say to my colleagues, this is nothing new. People would 
like to see these projects built if, in fact, they are feasible; and 
all the environmental processes, NEPA, CEPA, Endangered

[[Page 14994]]

Species Act, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, must be met to make sure 
that these projects are viable and feasible under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding time to me, and I want to commend her for her work on this 
legislation, also to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for 
all of his work on this legislation.
  Regretfully, I must oppose this legislation because I think at the 
moment, as this is currently drafted, this legislation fails to address 
what is, I believe, a fatal defect. Not only do I think it will delay 
the consideration of this legislation for a successful passage through 
the Congress, I also believe that it has a very real possibility of 
throwing much of this legislation back into the court, something we are 
trying to avoid with the CALFED process, and that is, the 
preauthorization of future California water projects.
  I appreciate what the gentleman said about WRDA; but I think if he 
takes a close look at WRDA he will find, in fact, it is a much 
different process than what we envision here. In fact, the language of 
this legislation says that virtually any water project or water supply 
or water yield can move into construction after a feasibility study. It 
does not say a favorable report, as it says in the WRDA or the Chief's. 
It simply says if you have the feasibility study, you can move on; and 
I think what, in fact, we will see is that those people who are critics 
of many of the projects that all of us support in this legislation will 
start to raise Cain at the local level about the process being rigged.
  They will take this to the courts, take this to the bow, and we will 
go through a process that is just going to be unacceptable in terms of 
meeting the goals that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) have for this 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair would inform the 
House that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) has 21 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  I rise in support, full support and strong support, of H.R. 2828. I 
think maximizing the use of our limited water resources in California 
is an issue that is close to my Orange County district, and it is close 
to me.
  In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and I are 
the sponsors of a bill, H.R. 1156, which would allow Orange County to 
complete its revolutionary Groundwater Replenishment System. That 
system would create a new water supply of 72,000 acre feet per year and 
serve 2.3 million residents of the north and central portion of Orange 
County.
  The bill would increase the authorized Federal share for this project 
from $20 million to $80 million, and I would like to inquire if the 
Chairman continues to support this very important bill that, 
unfortunately, is not in this good CALFED bill, but which is very 
important to Orange County.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and 
inquiry.
  As the gentlewoman knows, I strongly support recycling as a way to 
reduce Southern California's dependence on imported water and help 
drought-proof the region. That is why I supported H.R. 1156, a bill 
championed by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), whose district includes the Groundwater Replenishment 
System, and the gentlewoman here today from the 47th district.
  I am fully supportive of House passage of H.R. 1156, H.R. 2991, 
introduced by our colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
and other recycling bills reported by the House Committee on Resources, 
but I know that it is up to the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
to determine which bills are debated on the House floor.
  In the meantime, I will continue to strongly support H.R. 1156, and I 
thank the gentlewoman's support for H.R. 2828.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask the support of 
our colleagues for this bill on the floor today.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman, on an issue 
which I would hope to have seen more about in this bill, and that is 
the restoration of the Salton Sea.
  As we know, an earlier version of the bill provided for a feasibility 
study and $300 million in restoration funds. We all know about the 
importance of the Salton Sea in our ecology and in our economy. It is 
critical for the Pacific flyway for migratory birds, as well as the 
Colorado River's delta, and is home to a variety of wildlife, including 
fish, birds, microbes, and wetlands species. The sea also provides many 
recreational opportunities such as camping, bird watching, fishing, 
boating, hiking, hunting, and off-roading.
  If the sea were no longer able to support life, it would cause 
irreparable harm to Southern California's ecosystem and economy.
  The Salton Sea lies mostly in my district in Southern California. It 
is the third largest saline lake in the nation, and the largest inland 
body of water west of the Rockies. The Sea is an important natural 
resource, one that is valued not only by residents of the area, but 
also by the many who come from around the country to enjoy its bounty.
  The Salton Sea does not have an outlet to keep the water fresh, so as 
water evaporates from the saline lake, the salt left behind continues 
to concentrate. As the salinity of the Sea continues to rise, and the 
environmental quality continues to decline, it will no longer be able 
to support life and will begin to die. If that were to happen, it will 
cause irreparable harm to Southern California's ecosystem and economy.
  The surrounding areas of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys rely on 
the Sea to support their agricultural and recreational economies. I 
share the concerns of many about what might occur if the elevation of 
the Sea drops, becomes too saline to support fish or birds, and further 
impairs air quality due to blowing sediment.
  The Salton Sea is also an essential link in increasing and 
diversifying our domestic water resources, and therefore needs funding 
for restoration. A recently signed federal water transfer agreement 
between Southern California water agencies will reduce flows to the 
Salton Sea. While the water transfer will assist Southern California in 
staying within its Colorado River water allocation, inflows to the Sea 
may be reduced dramatically. With that diminished amount of inflow, the 
Salton Sea presents a particularly difficult challenge in protecting 
and restoring it, while at the same time reducing California's use of 
Colorado River water.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) has been very supportive 
of the Salton Sea and has been involved in this issue for well over a 
decade.
  I would like to inquire as to further support of the Salton Sea as 
part of the CALFED legislative process, and would ask for the gentleman 
to comment on that.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of 
the Salton Sea. I would like to assure him that I and many of our 
Southern California colleagues, including the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), continue to strongly support the restoration of the

[[Page 14995]]

Salton Sea, and we will work with him and others in our delegation to 
continue these efforts.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and look 
forward to that work and urge support of the bill.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into a very brief 
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee; that being, does this 
bill change existing law as it relates to area of origin?
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is: 
No.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza)
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support an issue that has been addressed in this House for nearly a 
decade yet has never made it quite this far before today. This is an 
enormous accomplishment and I applaud my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), as well as our esteemed Senator from 
California, Senator Feinstein, for overcoming numerous hurdles that 
have prevented this issue from passing in recent years.
  This is an immense amount of work from both sides of the aisle and 
both Chambers that has gone into this measure; and, finally, we are 
poised to formalize our commitment to ensuring a safe, reliable water 
supply for California.
  This proposal will greatly strengthen California's agricultural 
economy as well as address the needs of a fast-growing population, 
while at the same time maintaining our commitment to the environment. 
In fact, I believe this bill strongly enhances the environment and, in 
particular, the Delta of California.
  This delicate balance, while difficult to achieve, is critical to the 
success of CALFED. In my mind, the true test of the value of the bill 
is whether it has achieved a level of compromise. While no one is 
completely satisfied with this measure, everyone's concerns were 
considered and addressed. This measure passes the test by leaps and 
bounds. This bill has brought together parties that in the past have 
had conflicts that have just torn the State apart. These stakeholders 
have worked diligently now for years to develop some creative 
opportunities for additional conveyance, while addressing some of the 
extremely tough water quality and water supply challenges in 
California.
  Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. If the Federal Government does 
not act now on this legislation, the future of CALFED and our 
agricultural economy and viability hangs in the balance. I believe that 
those of us who have pushed for additional surface storage are finally 
being heard. These projects are critical to California's future and 
must move forward now without pure obstructionists standing in the way.
  This is a good bill for the environment, this is a good bill for the 
economy, and it is a good bill for California. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``aye.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been going through trying to get reauthorization 
for CALFED for a number of years and have been unable to because of the 
differences of opinions from many areas of needs. I think it is time 
that we move forward and begin to work on getting this CALFED passed, 
which has had a lot of give on the side that we have been working on, 
and for that, I thank the chairman.
  We look forward to making sure that we continue to work on anything 
else that some of my colleagues might want on another venue, and I 
certainly would urge all my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to 
vote for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close, and I want to again thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano) for her good work and her dedication on this 
legislation. She spent many hours and much of her time traveling 
through the State of California and throughout the western United 
States as we came to understand the issue of water.
  There are very few subjects that bring out more emotion and passion 
than water, and certainly I have grown to understand the subject much 
better over the last number of years. I am looking forward to passing 
this bill today and moving ahead.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the bill offered by 
my good friend from California and Chairman of the Resources 
Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Ken Calvert.
  Mr. Speaker, on balance, H.R. 2828 is not a good bill for rural 
Northern California. While it takes some positive steps forward to 
improve the administration of CALFED by instituting greater financial 
accountability and ecosystem reporting requirements, it still allows 
the implementation of an expensive, and ill-advised program that has 
not produced storage nor positive results for Northern California. The 
bill basically adopts and focuses on the CALFED Record of Decision 
(ROD) as a framework, which does not provide a comprehensive water 
solution for the State. CALFED has always been heavily weighted toward 
ecosystem restoration and increasing exports from the Delta. I don't 
see that changing sufficiently under this bill. New storage under 
CALFED has been only empty promises, and the language in H.R. 2828 
doesn't ensure otherwise. The state should take a new direction that 
places a greater emphasis on water storage and constrains the ability 
of state and federal agencies to buy more land and water. In short, 
there is not much to be gained, but much to be lost under H.R. 2828 for 
our area. As such, I strongly oppose it.
  I originally supported the CALFED program in concept. Recognizing the 
very serious water challenges facing our state, I shared the view held 
by many other Members of Congress from California that such a joint 
state-federal program could provide an opportunity for developing a 
framework to solve our water woes for the long-term. Unfortunately, 
rather than providing a realistic solution to allow the water interests 
in the state to ``get well together,'' as CALFED had originally 
promised, the program has become heavily weighted toward ecosystem 
restoration and focused on buying land and water to shift around 
already constrained water supplies, rather than on developing new water 
storage to meet our state's growing water needs. In addition, there has 
never been sufficient local control. Instead, federal agencies have 
been empowered to make important decisions about land and water 
resources impacting communities.
  California faces a water deficit of potentially crisis proportions. 
The water supply in the state is already stretched to its practical 
limits. To put the current situation in perspective, recognize that the 
State Water Project was constructed when California's population was 
only 16 million people. Today it is over 34 million, and growing at a 
rate of roughly 600,000 new citizens a year. Yet California's water 
supply yield has increased by a mere 2 percent over the last 20 years. 
And the California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98 from a few years 
ago indicates that existing supply shortages will get appreciably worse 
over the next 20 years as the state's population continues to increase. 
Water deficits are projected to reach approximately 2.4 million acre 
feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre feet in drought 
years by the year 2020. If history is any guide, Californians are 
likely to face major drought conditions not unlike the 500-year drought 
that is currently plaguing the Colorado basin states some time in the 
near future. Yet despite this pending crisis, the central focus of the 
CALFED program has been a plethora of costly environmental projects and 
plans to increase ability of the State and Federal water projects to 
move more water to Southern California.
  CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet this 
incredible challenge. While it publicly recognizes water shortfalls, 
the storage solutions it has proposed will not provide sufficient 
supply benefits. A new Sites Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam and 
augmenting Los Vaqueros could be essential pieces of our water puzzle, 
but my concern is they really won't inject significant additional

[[Page 14996]]

water ``yield'' into the system. CALFED has taken solutions such as an 
Auburn Dam, a Yuba Dam, and other on-stream reservoirs off the table 
because of the environmental controversy they might cause, despite the 
fact that they present opportunities for new cost-effective water 
supplies, and provide other benefits like flood control, electricity 
generation and recreation.
  Our current situation is so desperate, and the possible impacts to 
the economy and public safety of another sustained drought so horrific, 
that we're not in a position to take these options off the table 
because they're politically unpalatable. To the contrary, we should be 
vigorously pursuing them, setting deadlines and goals, streamlining 
environmental review requirements, and updating federal laws to ensure 
cost-effective, feasible projects will actually be built and provide 
water to communities and farmers. Yet, despite several years and 
millions of dollars of investments from the state and federal 
government, CALFED has only studied and restudied a limited number of 
small storage options, without moving the ball down the field. 
Meantime, our water needs continue to grow dramatically. Fundamentally, 
when the problem is too many people and not enough water, I believe the 
answer is to create additional water storage, not sacrifice some parts 
of the state, including California's thriving agriculture industry, so 
others can get better. Carving up and reallocating an already 
constrained water system will not allow everyone to ``get well 
together.''
  The ``Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act'' 
takes some positive steps forward in some areas, and will institute 
some accountability into a program that desperately needs it. For 
example, CALFED has spent taxpayer dollars without Congress or the 
public knowing or understanding where those funds have gone, and what 
the benefits for the state have been. H.R. 2828's financial reporting 
requirements will help Congress better track those expenditures. In 
addition, the annual reporting requirements for ecosystem restoration 
provided for in the bill will help Congress better monitor those 
projects, including land and water purchases. The bill also clarifies 
that local fish screen projects are a legitimate and helpful way to 
help local farmers meet federal and state endangered species 
requirements. I believe each of these program changes represent 
positive steps forward.
  That being said, I do not feel this bill goes far enough to fix a 
program that is fundamentally flawed and moving in the wrong direction. 
While its expedited ``preauthorization'' process for CALFED storage 
projects elevates storage as a principle and could set an important new 
precedent for future infrastructure development, it appears to 
authorize only those projects approved pursuant to the CALFED ROD. I 
have long argued that CALFED's storage proposals are woefully 
insufficient to address our state's water needs. According to some 
estimates, a small Shasta raise, a new Sites Reservoir and a project at 
Los Vaqueros--the CALFED ROD's storage projects--the approximate yield 
would be only about 300,000 acre feet--far short of addressing a water 
shortfall in the millions of acre feet.
  The bill also does not require expedited consideration for these 
projects. We have seen time and again how CALFED has dithered and 
stalled in pursuing new storage. In my view, a responsible CALFED 
should set hard and fast deadlines and move storage forward on an 
aggressive schedule. Moreover, the federal environmental review 
process, as we have seen on forest health projects, can take years and 
cost millions of dollars, only to be obstructed in the end by radical 
environmentalists through appeals and court challenges. The bill does 
not recognize and address those hard realities. In my view, it doesn't 
do enough to streamline the environmental review process, or to address 
the obstacles that unbalanced environmental laws are likely to pose to 
their ultimate development.
  There is nothing in the bill to prevent CALFED agencies from 
continuing to purchase land and water as proposed in the ROD. Indeed, 
the bill explicitly authorizes the purchase of land and water as an 
acceptable CALFED activity under existing authority. And while there 
are reporting requirements, the impetus is on Congress to specifically 
defund these agency-approved acquisitions, rather than on the agencies 
to ask Congress to specifically approve and justify them. Because of 
the community impacts and private property rights concerns of 
additional land and water acquisitions, it should be the other way 
around.
  I am also concerned by proposals to place the burden of CALFED 
funding on the shoulders of Sacramento Valley water users, but I 
understand Chairman Calvert has attempted to address that issue. In 
accordance with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 
2828, the ``beneficiary pays'' principle specifically applies to direct 
beneficiaries of projects that improve the Delta. According to this 
principle, project participants in the CALFED solution area are not 
considered direct beneficiaries of the CALFED program. Therefore, 
Sacramento Valley water users who participate in projects to improve 
the Delta are not subject to any fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries 
of the CALFED program.
  In closing, something needs to be done--and soon--about the water 
situation in California. It is only getting worse with each passing 
day. Today's legislation takes some positive steps forward and I 
commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. However, I fear 
that the task at hand is so great that unless stronger and more 
aggressive changes are made to the CALFED program, the state will fail 
to meet today's and tomorrow's infrastructure challenges.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2828, the 
California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects.
  It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab 
for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from 
getting stuck with the cost for large water projects, and would open 
the Federal treasury to raids by disingenuous water users. H.R. 2828 
would ``preauthorize'' major water projects. A ``yes'' vote on H.R. 
2828 would mean Congress gives up its long-standing right to have a say 
over taxpayer funded projects. Why should the rest of the country pay 
for California's water problem? They have 35 million taxpayers to pay 
for it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Water 
Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act, H.R. 2828, 
widely known as CALFED. The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is 
to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that improves 
water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta System. The San 
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, the Bay-Delta, is a 
region of critical importance to California, often described as the hub 
of the State's water supply system.
  The authorization of the CALFED program has been a priority for 
California and its neighboring States for many years. And while the 
existing program has accomplished a great deal in managing our water 
supply and improving the ecosystem of the Bay-Delta, this bill provides 
the comprehensive Congressional accountability it has been lacking. 
H.R. 2828 provides the authority for Federal agencies to fully engage 
in a partnership with the State of California and the stakeholders of 
the CALFED program.
  We have also long recognized the importance of improving management 
and coordination of existing water supply projects for meeting present 
and future water demands. Preserving and enhancing the ecosystem, while 
developing new sources of water for growing consumptive needs, and 
allocating existing supplies to meet changing demands, is a great 
challenge.
  This challenge was met head on by the House Resources Committee under 
the leadership of Chairman Richard Pombo, and Subcommittee on Water and 
Power Chairman Ken Calvert. I congratulate both of them for their 
extraordinary work in achieving this level of negotiation, compromise, 
and support. What is even more remarkable is that the work produced by 
Mr. Calvert will be voted on today without any amendments offered to it 
on the House floor, with the exception of the substitute that he 
crafted. This is a testament to his tenacity in providing Californians 
with the best water plan possible.
  I also know that Mr. Calvert and this legislation have widespread 
support back home in California, beginning with Governor Arnold 
Schwarzenegger. One of his first acts as then Governor-Elect in late 
October, 2003, was to send a strong letter of support for CALFED 
legislation to Congress expressing his desire to see Mr. Calvert's 
legislation succeed and making CALFED authorization a priority for the 
State.
  H.R. 2828 will provide a long-term comprehensive plan to address 
challenges in the Bay-Delta region by balancing water resource 
management issues including supply, quality, and ecosystem restoration. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Water Supply, Reliability 
and Environmental Improvement Act.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House 
is considering H.R. 2828, the Water Supply Reliability, and 
Environmental Improvement Act.
  This bill reauthorizes the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a Federal-State 
cooperative effort to manage water resources in California.
  The purpose of the program is to increase the supply of available 
water for municipal, agricultural, and industrial use, and to engage in 
watershed restoration.

[[Page 14997]]

  Water is a very precious resource, particularly in the West.
  The supply of water is governed by State law. However, many Federal 
and State programs and projects also manage water resources and impact 
water supply.
  Eighteen Federal and State agencies are partners in the CALFED 
program. Two of those agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Army Corps of Engineers, fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  EPA has some existing authorities that can help meet the goals of the 
CALFED program. The Corps also has many water resources development 
projects either under study or under construction in the Bay-Delta 
area, including the Sacramento/San Joaquin river basins comprehensive 
study.
  This legislation does not authorize any EPA programs or Corps 
projects, even if a project is specifically mentioned in the August 28, 
2000, programmatic record of decision that H.R. 2828 establishes as the 
general framework for addressing the CALFED program.
  EPA and Corps activities in furtherance of the CALFED program must 
fall under existing authorities and nothing in this bill changes those 
authorities, or directs the USA of EPA or Corps funds.
  Additional Corps projects in the Bay-Delta area may be authorized 
later, but those projects will go through the regular Corps of 
Engineers feasibility study process and regular authorization process 
in a water resources development act.
  This does not mean that EPA and the Corps are not full participants 
in the CALFED program. In carrying out existing programs and projects, 
EPA and the Corps will coordinate their activities with all the Federal 
agencies participating in CALFED, and the State of California.
  I congratulate Mr. Calvert and Mr. Pombo for bringing this 
legislation to the House floor. It has been a long time coming and 
reflects a lot of hard work by many Members.
  I urge all Members to support this bill.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for general debate 
has expired.


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

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

    TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Record of decision as general framework.--The Record of 
     Decision is approved as a general framework for addressing 
     the Calfed Bay-Delta Program, including its components 
     relating to water storage and water yield, ecosystem 
     restoration, water supply reliability, conveyance, water use 
     efficiency, water quality, water transfers, watersheds, the 
     Environmental Water Account, levee stability, governance, and 
     science.
       (2) Requirements.--In General.-- The Secretary and the 
     heads of the Federal agencies are authorized to carry out the 
     activities under this title consistent with--
       (A) the Record of Decision; and
       (B) the requirement that Program activities consisting of 
     protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological 
     health, improving water supply reliability (including 
     additional storage and conveyance) and water yield, and 
     protecting Delta levees will progress in a balanced manner.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal 
     agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described 
     in paragraphs (2) through (5) in furtherance of the Calfed 
     Bay-Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision, 
     subject to the cost-share and other provisions of this title, 
     if the activity has been:
       (A) subject to environmental review and approval, as 
     required under applicable Federal and State law; and
       (B) approved and certified by the relevant Federal agency 
     to be consistent with the Record of Decision and within the 
     scope of the agency's authority under existing law.
       (2) Multiple benefit projects favored.--In selecting 
     projects and programs for increasing water yield and water 
     supply, improving water quality, and enhancing environmental 
     benefits, projects and programs with multiple benefits shall 
     be emphasized.
       (3) Balance.--The Secretary shall ensure that all elements 
     of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program need to be completed and 
     operated cooperatively to maintain the balanced progress in 
     all Calfed Bay-Delta Program areas.
       (4) Authorizations for federal agencies under applicable 
     law.--
       (A) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior is authorized to carry out the activities described 
     in subparagraphs (A) through (J) of paragraph (5), to the 
     extent authorized under the reclamation laws, the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law 
     102-575; 106 Stat. 4706), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other applicable law.
       (B) The administrator of the environmental protection 
     agency.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency may carry out the activities described in 
     subparagraphs (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph 
     (5), in furtherance of the Calfed Bay-Delta program, to the 
     extent authorized under the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300f et seq.), and other laws in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this title.
       (C) The secretary of the army.--The Secretary of the Army 
     may carry out the activities described in subparagraphs (B), 
     (F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph (5), in furtherance of 
     the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, to the extent authorized under 
     flood control, water resource development, and other laws in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this title.
       (D) Secretary of commerce.--The Secretary of Commerce is 
     authorized to carry out the activities described in 
     subparagraphs (B), (F), (G), and (I) of paragraph (5), to the 
     extent authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and other applicable law.
       (E) Secretary of agriculture.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     is authorized to carry out the activities described in 
     subparagraphs (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph 
     (5), to the extent authorized under title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     171; 116 Stat. 134) (including amendments made by that Act), 
     and other applicable law.
       (5) Description of activities under existing 
     authorizations.--
       (A) Water storage and water yield.--Activities under this 
     subparagraph consist of--

[[Page 14998]]

       (i) Feasibility studies and resolution.--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (I) The Secretary shall review any feasibility level 
     studies for seawater desalination and regional brine line 
     projects that have been completed, whether or not those 
     studies were prepared with financial assistance from the 
     Secretary.
       (II) The Secretary shall report to the Congress not later 
     than 90 days after the completion of a feasibility study or 
     the review of a feasibility study. For the purposes of this 
     Act, the Secretary is authorized to provide

[[Page 14999]]

     assistance for projects as set forth and pursuant to the 
     existing requirements of the Reclamation Wastewater and 
     Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-9575; 
     title 16) as amended, and Reclamation Recycling and Water 
     Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-266).

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

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

       (ii) Annual ecosystem program plan.--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 15000]]

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

     SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT.

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

     SEC. 105. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 15 of each year, 
     the Secretary, in cooperation with the Governor, shall submit 
     to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating Committees 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 
     that--
       (A) describes the status of implementation of all 
     components of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program;
       (B) sets forth any written determination resulting from the 
     review required under subsection (b); and
       (C) includes any revised schedule prepared under subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall describe--
       (A) the progress of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program in meeting 
     the implementation schedule for the Program in a manner 
     consistent with the Record of Decision;
       (B) the status of implementation of all components of the 
     Program;
       (C) expenditures in the past fiscal year for implementing 
     the Program;
       (D) accomplishments during the past fiscal year in 
     achieving the objectives of additional and improved--
       (i) water storage, including water yield;

[[Page 15001]]

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

     SEC. 106. CROSSCUT BUDGET.

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

     SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

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

     SEC. 108. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

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

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

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

                   TITLE II--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM

     SEC. 201. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

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

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

[[Page 15002]]

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


     Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. George Miller of california

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

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

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

[[Page 15003]]

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

                              {time}  1245

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

[[Page 15004]]

  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the time for any electronic vote, if ordered, on the question of 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 139, 
nays 255, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 354]

                               YEAS--139

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

                               NAYS--255

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

                             NOT VOTING--40

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1312

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

                          ____________________