[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11730-11773]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          WESTERN WATER AND AMERICAN FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2898.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 362 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2898.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0913


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2898) to provide drought relief in the State of California, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the American West is in the midst of a 
severe drought, especially central California. This problem demands 
swift action, with tens of thousands of trees, plants, jobs, food, and 
livelihoods at stake.

[[Page 11731]]

  H.R. 2898 will help bring our Western water supply infrastructure 
into the 21st century, making it more drought resistant. The bill also 
addresses the manmade Federal decisions that are exacerbating the 
drought.
  H.R. 2898 ensures scientific transparency in Federal actions that are 
literally taking water away from people that desperately need it, all 
for questionable benefit of endangered fish.
  The bill also requires the deployment of more effective management 
tools like addressing the nonnative fish that are harming the 
endangered fish.

                              {time}  0915

  West-wide, the bill takes steps to build new water storage that is 
crucial to the well-being of Western communities and economies. To 
assist non-Federal projects, the bill creates a one-stop shop for water 
storage permitting at the Bureau of Reclamation.
  Oftentimes, Federal agencies overlap or conflict with each other when 
it comes to permitting non-Federal facilities. This provision forces 
them to sit down with one lead agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, to 
resolve issues and expedite permitting.
  For Federal projects, the bill creates a streamlined and transparent 
process for the Bureau that mirrors the Army Corps' provisions in the 
Water Resource Reform and Development Act of 2014, which was enacted by 
overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress.
  To offset the bill's implementation costs and finance new water 
storage, the bill allows irrigation districts and water utilities to 
prepay their share of the capital costs of Federal water projects.
  Mr. Chairman, some water users are prohibited from paying off 
contracts early. This is nonsensical. Congress has lifted the 
restrictions in piecemeal fashion before, and it is time to dispense 
with it altogether.
  One way to efficiently construct new storage is to allow the Bureau 
of Reclamation to make water storage improvements during the course of 
making safety improvements. H.R. 2898 allows the Bureau to do just 
that.
  Finally, the bill prohibits the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture from holding public land permits hostage unless permittees 
give up their State-endowed water rights. This will put a stop to the 
Federal Government's repeated attempts to grab water rights at the 
expense of State authority from the Forest Service's interim directive 
for ski area permits to the Service's ill-fated groundwater directive.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill takes a commonsense approach to solving water 
problems in the West, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: I am writing concerning H.R. 2898, 
     the ``Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015.''
       This legislation contains provisions within the Committee 
     on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your 
     having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite 
     this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on 
     Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being 
     done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so 
     will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and 
     in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of 
     this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2015.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 9, 2015, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered reported with amendments H.R. 2898, 
     the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015. The 
     bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled expeditiously by the Majority Leader. This 
     discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as 
     precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a 
     conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your 
     request to have the Committee on Agriculture represented on 
     the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to 
     include this letter and any response in the bill report filed 
     by the Committee on Natural Resources as well as in the 
     Congressional Record to memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for 
     your continued strong cooperation between our committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It was just last winter that we were here on the House floor talking 
about another so-called drought bill that my Republican colleagues were 
attempting to slam through the House within just a few days of its 
introduction.
  This time the bill has a different title, but it is pretty much the 
same bill. We are back today to consider yet another bill that harms 
West Coast fisheries and tribal interests, another bill that undermines 
State law, another bill that micromanages the most complex water system 
in the world in a way that benefits a select few at the expense of many 
others across the State of California, another bill that is going 
nowhere.
  We have a SAP from the administration. We have a withering three-page 
letter of opposition critiquing the bill from the Department of the 
Interior. The two largest circulation papers in California have both 
editorialized against it. The State of California is on record opposing 
prior versions of this bill.
  Now, unlike last year, when the House did not allow any amendments to 
the bill, we are here today with 4 out of 5 Republican amendments made 
in order and 4 out of 24 Democratic amendments made in order.
  That may seem like marginal progress over the 113th Congress' very 
closed process, but that is no way to do business and certainly no way 
to get a bill signed into law. With something as complicated and 
important as California water, we really should make sure everyone has 
a say, and that is what Democrats have attempted to do. We have 
introduced a drought response bill, H.R. 2983, which is a comprehensive 
drought bill. It brings everyone to the table.
  This bill had 6 weeks of public review before even being formally 
introduced, resulting in substantial crowdsource changes to the bill. 
Our water future deserves that kind of open debate and real solutions.
  I have been joined by 34 cosponsors on that bill because it provides 
both short- and long-term investments in water supply reliability, the 
kind of tools that all Western States will need.
  My bill includes significant resources to support farmworkers and 
others who are out of work, not just lipservice. And I submit that if 
my Republican colleagues really care about the challenges faced by 
farmworkers and others affected by this drought, they will join us in 
backing real solutions that provide meaningful assistance in addition 
to stretching our limited water supplies.
  Our bill is supported by the Association of California Water 
Agencies, California sanitation agencies, numerous other water 
agencies, environmental groups and stakeholders, and both the L.A. 
Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have editorialized in favor of 
the Democratic alternative drought response bill and opposed to the 
bill we are considering here today.
  Mr. Chairman, let's have some hearings. Despite the importance of 
this issue, we have held no legislative hearings on drought responses 
in the 114th Congress, not on the majority's bill, not on my 
alternative.
  Let's have hearings on both bills. Let's see which one produces the 
most

[[Page 11732]]

water, which one produces that water more quickly, and which one 
produces it more cost-effectively and more reliably.
  I hope that someday, Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing real water 
solutions in that spirit, vetted in an open hearing, that can actually 
produce something that will be signed into law, instead of the same 
tired, divisive ideas that pit our State's water users against each 
other.
  Now, a lot of people have asked me: Why do your Republican colleagues 
refuse to have serious hearings on their water proposal? I think the 
answer is pretty clear. Like its predecessors, we are here considering 
a bill that, when it is exposed to public scrutiny, simply falls apart.
  Here's what the Department of the Interior said last week in a letter 
to our committee, in lieu of testimony, of course, because there was no 
legislative hearing on the bill. They said: ``Instead of increasing 
water supplies, H.R. 2898 dictates operational decisions and imposes an 
additional new legal standard. Instead of saving water, this could 
actually limit water supplies by creating new and confusing conflicts 
with existing laws, thereby adding an unnecessary layer of complexity 
to Federal and State project operations. As a result of this additional 
standard, we believe H.R. 2898 will slow decisionmaking, generate 
significant litigation, and limit the real-time operational flexibility 
that is so critical to maximizing water delivery.''
  Although the Pacific Fishery Management Council wasn't given an 
opportunity to actually testify on this bill, again, because we had no 
hearings, they opposed last year's version, and they wrote to us this 
week to say that they are on record on what appears to be similar 
legislation. Specifically, they are concerned about the bill's 
provisions that redirect water away from salmon habitat.
  The closure of the West Coast salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 
required $158 million in Federal disaster relief. And, sadly, the Rules 
Committee did not allow a vote on our amendment to require a full 
Pacific Fishery Management Council review of this legislation.
  There is no question that this bill explicitly preempts State water 
law, and it waives and weakens the application of bedrock Federal 
environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and NEPA, but 
the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on my amendment to protect 
California water law from preemption nor my amendment to strengthen the 
water rights protections in the bill. It seems that the issue of 
states' rights is simply an inconvenient subject when it comes to 
Republican water legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, water is a complex subject, but it doesn't have to be 
partisan combat. It doesn't have to scapegoat environmental laws or pit 
one region against the other in a zero-sum game.
  I chaired the California Assembly's Water Committee during the last 
drought in 2009, and we did it the right way. We held lots of hearings. 
We brought interests from all over the State together and, in the end, 
although it was a lot of work, through that deliberative, transparent 
process we produced comprehensive water legislation that was supported 
by Republicans and Democrats from all corners of the State.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, a near unanimous California legislature 
agreed on a multibillion-dollar water bond that has created significant 
water reforms in full public view. If my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle would just give up on the idea of ramming the same 
divisive ideas through Congress every few months, we too might be able 
to make some progress on solving water problems.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, droughts are nature's fault, but water 
shortages are our fault. They are a deliberate choice we made nearly 40 
years ago when we stopped building new dams. We haven't added a major 
reservoir in California since 1979, while the population of our State 
has nearly doubled.
  Even before the drought, leftist policies created severe water 
shortages in California's Central Valley, devastating the economy and 
creating the spectacle of food lines in one of the most fertile 
agricultural regions of our Nation.
  For 4 years, the House has passed comprehensive legislation to 
resolve this crisis before it became a crisis. For 4 years, Senate 
Democrats blocked it; but the public has now awakened, and the Senate 
has changed.
  The voices we hear in opposition are the same voices that have 
dominated Western water policy these past 40 years. We now know where 
that leads.
  This bill doesn't preempt California water law; it protects it by 
forbidding State officials from fulfilling their threats to violate it. 
It comes at the request of local water agencies that are sick and tired 
of having their water expropriated by ideological zealots.
  It is time to choose between two very different visions of water 
policy. One is the nihilistic vision of the environmental left; 
increasingly severe, government-induced shortages, forced rationing, 
astronomical water prices, and a permanently declining quality of life 
for our children who will be required to stretch and ration every drop 
of water in their parched homes. The other is a vision of abundance, a 
new era of clean, cheap, and plentiful water and hydroelectricity; 
great new reservoirs to store water in wet years to assure plenty in 
dry ones; a society whose children can enjoy the prosperity that 
abundant water provides, including fresh and affordable groceries from 
America's agricultural cornucopia.
  Mr. Chairman, we choose abundance.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The alternative vision that we offer is certainly not one of 
austerity and sacrifice; it is one of reality.
  There was a time when the reclamation program from the Federal 
Government proceeded on the assumption that rain follows the plow. It 
was completely wishful, completely delusional, and we seem to be 
hearing vestiges of that old argument even today.
  What Democrats offer are real solutions--solutions that have been 
underfunded by Republicans for too many years, solutions that will 
generate more water and more water supply reliability than the 
Republican alternative we are considering.
  We continue to hear representations that are simply not correct. The 
claim that we haven't built a major reservoir in California since 1979, 
tell that to the folks that built Los Vaqueros Reservoir or Diamond 
Valley Reservoir or many others.
  We hear that the doubling of the population in the last few decades 
is what is driving this crisis. Well, in fact, the urban centers where 
that population has doubled have held their demand flat. The population 
has gone up. The water consumption has not.
  We continue to hear that this bill--remarkably, we continue to hear 
that it doesn't preempt State law. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would refer 
you simply to the CBO report at page 2, which recognizes that H.R. 2898 
would impose intergovernmental mandates by preempting the ability of 
the State of California to enforce its own water management and 
wildlife preservation laws. There is no question that this bill 
preempts State laws, and saving money by telling Federal agencies they 
no longer have to comply with State laws is no way to make public 
policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the delta 
region California (Mr. McNerney). He has been a champion on sustainable 
management of our water resources, and I am pleased to have him with 
us.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
H.R. 2898.
  Many of my colleagues here in Washington have told me they don't want 
to get involved in the California water wars, and I don't blame them. I 
don't want them to get involved in the California water wars, but this 
legislation will do tremendous harm to the California delta, an area 
that I am privileged to represent.

[[Page 11733]]

  Let's start with the facts. California is experiencing its driest 
year on record. In May, there was not even enough snowpack to measure. 
The United States Drought Monitor measured that about 46 percent of 
California is in an ``exceptional drought.''
  The so-called drought bill does nothing to solve California's water 
issues or address drought across the West. Instead, it preempts State 
laws, reduces management flexibility, eliminates protection for salmon 
and other endangered species, and rolls back our Nation's fundamental 
environmental laws.
  We need to look at real solutions and not waste time and resources 
recycling old, bad ideas. Moving more water south doesn't answer our 
problems. It hurts delta farmers and the salmon industry. We can't pick 
and choose our economies. We need to fight for all of them.
  Let's be clear. My Republican colleagues are basing a lot of their 
arguments on the idea that environmental regulations send too much 
water to the ocean that otherwise could be used by communities. But 
according to the State Water Resources Control Board, in 2014, 72 
percent of the delta outflow was required to control salinity so that 
the delta's water supply did not become too salty for agriculture or 
urban communities across the State.

                              {time}  0930

  If we override these laws, permanent damage will result for 
fishermen, farmers, families, and businesses throughout California. 
What I don't understand is why our Republican colleagues keep fighting 
against protections that preserve the quality of water for their 
constituents.
  The Department of the Interior also opposes this bill because it 
would ``impede an effective and timely response to the continuing 
drought while providing no additional water to hard-hit communities.''
  And California doesn't want Federal legislation to ``weaken State and 
Federal environmental protections . . . preempt State law . . . and 
favor one region of the State over another,'' which is exactly what 
this bill does.
  We are a State known for innovation, and we have to support bold, 
forward-thinking solutions that create new water and don't pit regions 
of California against each other. We should be supporting water 
efficiency, storage, reuse, recycling, water management, innovative 
water projects, and long-term approaches to water shortages.
  While this legislation will further disrupt a fragile delta and hurt 
its local economy, I, along with my colleagues, will be pushing for 
solutions that create more water and respond to the needs of the entire 
State.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I want to ask my colleagues in the Great Lakes region 
and the Florida Everglades to pay attention. This bill, if passed, will 
set a new precedent for grabbing freshwater over any environmental 
protections. Your water could be next.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2898.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard today and will hear quite a bit more 
claims from the opposition, and I think it is high time that we 
reintroduce facts into the debate on California water.
  My district is the source of much of California's water and home to 
its largest reservoirs, just two of which can hold 8 million acre-feet, 
enough for 32 million people for an entire year. This water is 
delivered throughout the length of the State, and no other district 
provides so much for so many.
  However, even my constituents are facing mandatory rationing and 
fallowed fields. I support this measure because it respects State water 
rights and aids all Californians without favoring any region of the 
State over another.
  Ask the Bay Area lawmakers, who have expressed so much concern over 
``sparking a water war'' where their water comes from. You will find 
that their water comes from my district, my colleagues' districts in 
the Valley, as well as the Sierras.
  This bill advances planning of five surface water storage projects 
that would yield enough water for 9.6 million people, projects that 
two-thirds of Californians voted to fund with State money just last 
year.
  Yet, my disappointment here is that we have so many California 
legislators today and in the past that oppose anything we try to do to 
enhance the water supply and deliverability in the State of California.
  What is more, it isn't human water use that is negatively impacting 
listed species. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service and 
Delta Stewardship Council, 90 percent of endangered winter-run salmon 
are killed and eaten by invasive fish species before they even reach 
the delta.
  The opposition, despite all data to the contrary, denies that 
invasive species are a part of the problem. Years of lawsuits aimed at 
reducing water use haven't helped at all endangered salmon, but this 
bill takes real steps to aid that population. This bill takes action to 
reduce the populations of invasive species.
  While opponents may claim this bill impacts commercial salmon 
fishing, they won't say that the National Marine Fisheries Service 
found that commercial ocean fishing reduces the remaining endangered 
winter-run Chinook population by as much as 25 percent.
  So there it is right there. 92.5 percent of endangered winter-run 
Chinook are killed by invasive species and commercial fishing outside 
of whatever happens in the delta, 92.5 percent.
  When opponents claim that this bill alters the Endangered Species 
Act, ask them to show you the language where it does so. They can't 
show you that because it doesn't exist. Believe me, if I could, I would 
amend the Endangered Species Act to be more effective, actually, in 
helping species as well as human needs.
  In fact, this bill enhances implementation of the ESA by requiring 
improved population monitoring and invasive species management, 
components that should be universally supportable.
  Mr. Chairman, let's put a stop to the half-truths and misleading 
rhetoric, such as no hearings being held. We had two hearings as well 
as hearings in the Valley on this bill and its components.
  The opponents don't believe that we should take any action at all, 
that nothing is wrong, despite 36 percent mandatory water reductions to 
homes--such as in my district, like in Redding--thousands of lost jobs, 
and a half million fallowed acres.
  These drought deniers claim that 38 million people--soon to be 50 
million in California--can prosper with water delivery infrastructure 
built for 20 million people years ago, despite irrefutable evidence 
that our State's economy has dried up.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to take action and pass H.R. 2898.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification, the opposition 
does not oppose addressing invasive species that may have impacts on 
our fisheries.
  What we do agree with, though, is all of the serious science, 
including peer-reviewed science, that finds that water diversions are 
the main challenge and the main impact. And we cannot ignore the 
elephant in the room when we are talking about recovering our 
fisheries.
  As for this claim that there was some kind of a hearing in the 
Valley, Mr. Chairman, not in this Congress and not a real hearing.
  It doesn't count when you have a Republican swing through Fresno with 
a fundraiser and a rally and a press event and no Democratic ranking 
members in attendance. That is not serious deliberation.
  We are talking about real hearings where diverse witnesses and water 
experts and lots of Democrats get to participate in a serious and 
meaningful way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs.

[[Page 11734]]

Napolitano), the ranking member of our Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee of the T&I Committee, a champion on water issues for many, 
many years.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do heavily oppose H.R. 2898. It does create no new 
wet water.
  I am hearing a lot of rhetoric on all these different things that 
have happened. I have been on that subcommittee for 17 years, and I 
have heard it all.
  I have been to the Central Valley. I have been talking to farmers. 
But I don't see any of my colleagues on the other side visiting 
southern California and checking out how we do things in San Diego and 
Los Angeles, to be able to have hearings with the water agencies and 
all those that are critically affected by what is affecting southern 
California.
  Now, this bill has been introduced. There has been no hearing in our 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. There has been no 
consultation with Democrats, except one maybe, with no water agency, 
with State agencies, with cities, and with tribes.
  It does nothing for farmworkers, the ones who are really affected by 
the drought and who have no way of being able to have income or other 
way of subsidence.
  The bill focuses on the Central Valley at the expense of the rest of 
both northern California and southern California.
  It requires mandatory pumping to agribusiness, which reduces southern 
California water deliveries. It creates a complicated and ill-defined 
system that is a very poor attempt at protecting State water deliveries 
to southern California.
  And it is proof, also, that the authors know that the bill will 
reduce deliveries to southern California due to water quality and 
environmental problems created with increased pumping to the Central 
Valley.
  This bill affects the entire country, the U.S., by weakening Federal 
environmental review laws, by creating unreasonable deadlines for 
environmental review when the biggest problem with delayed view is 
``inadequate funding.''
  California's Natural Resources Secretary, John Laird, states that 
this bill would ``reignite water wars, move water policy back into the 
courts, and try to pit one part of the State against another.''
  California Senator Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator, said the bill 
contains provisions ``that would violate environmental law.''
  California Senator Barbara Boxer says the bill ``will only reignite 
the water wars.''
  The White House opposes this legislation and will veto it, saying 
that ``it fails to address critical elements of California's complex 
water challenges and will, if enacted, impede an effective and timely 
response to the continuing drought while providing no additional water 
to the hard-hit communities.''
  We must work on this water issue in a bipartisan manner to address 
California's entire State drought.
  I have introduced H.R. 291, the Water in the 21st Century Act, which 
would provide actual drought relief to all of California with water 
conservation programs, water recycling projects, groundwater 
improvement operations, stormwater capture solutions, and 
desalinization.
  We need to support long-term solutions with shovel-ready projects 
that quickly create water.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There is a $300 million backlog on title XVI for 
recycled water that would help southern California be able to wean 
itself off of the imported water. Key House Democratic proposals have 
been excluded from the bill we are marking up today.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2898.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, 18 hearings in 5 years have been held on 
this subject. Democrat Members were invited to attend hearings in 
California. Only one chose to attend.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Western Water and 
American Food Security Act.
  The Obama administration has exacerbated drought conditions in the 
West by putting the demands of extremist special interest groups ahead 
of hard-working American families.
  For example, Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits have 
allowed for hundreds of billions of gallons of water to be diverted 
into the San Francisco Bay in order to protect a 3-inch fish.
  This has had a dramatic impact, killing thousands of jobs, harming 
our food supply, and leading to unemployment levels as high as 40 
percent in some communities.
  H.R. 2898 is a balanced approach for combating drought conditions in 
the West. The bill protects private water rights and prohibits Federal 
takings. This legislation streamlines the Federal permitting process 
and will increase water storage capacity.
  American families are hurting in the West and need some relief. H.R. 
2898 will help ensure a reliable water supply for our citizens and our 
Nation's ag producers.
  I urge adoption of this commonsense bill.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, more clarification is needed. We continue 
to hear about this legendary 3-inch fish that is apparently taking so 
much water from Californians.
  Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that, over the last 2 
years, that 3-inch fish has taken exactly zero water from those who 
depend on water diverted out of the delta system.
  As for employment levels, certainly folks are hurting from this 
drought throughout California and in other Western States.
  But with reference to agricultural employment, thanks to the 
incredible productivity of our farmers in California, ag employment was 
actually up 2 percent last year, another stubborn fact that needs to be 
remembered so that we can get the context of this bill right.
  I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), our distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
the time and for the good work he has done on the water issues in our 
committee and for the rational thought he brings to the discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act is not causing the 
California drought, period. It is wrong to mislead the people living 
through the drought by telling them that the answer is to abolish 
environmental laws. It isn't.
  But here come the House Republicans again with another unfounded 
attack on endangered species that will go extinct without ESA 
protection.
  Here they come again, claiming ``power grab'' and ``overreach'' every 
time that they don't get their way.
  Here they come again, using a serious water challenge as an excuse to 
chip away at a law they don't support, even if it is unrelated to the 
problem at hand.
  Millions of Californians need Congress to take this drought 
seriously. But my friends across the aisle have decided their 
opposition to the Endangered Species Act is more important, and the 
drought in California is a convenient excuse to dismantle ESA.
  We recently finished debating the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies appropriations bill that now includes language that would 
jeopardize the survival of the African elephant, greater sage-grouse, 
gray wolf, northern long-eared bat, Sonoran desert tortoise, and many 
other endangered species.
  H.R. 2898 will add the delta smelt and several salmon and steelhead 
runs to the list of species that the House Republicans have decided we 
can do without.
  I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, the sponsor of this 
legislation said last month on live television that he would 
``hopefully someday repeal the Endangered Species Act.'' That

[[Page 11735]]

kind of rhetoric is not constructive, but is a useful glimpse into the 
real Republican agenda.

                              {time}  0945

  By showing what this bill is actually about, these comments tell us 
Republicans know that this is a distraction from the real problem. 
California faces a crippling drought and global warming that will 
continue to make the State drier and hotter, and the demand for water 
far outstrips supply.
  Californians will have to make some tough choices in this drought, 
but they do not need to choose to exterminate fish and wildlife 
resources that belong to the American people. Congress should not 
choose to do so either.
  People and wildlife can coexist, and the ESA is proving it. Since 
1973, 99 percent of protected species have survived, and the U.S. 
economy has tripled from just over 5 trillion to more than 16 trillion. 
Restoring delta smelt, salmon, and steelheads will have additional 
economic benefit for commercial and recreational fishermen.
  If that isn't enough, Americans are telling us that we have to 
protect species. Recent polling shows 90 percent of voters support ESA.
  Sadly, this bill is just another example of House Republicans 
ignoring the will of the American people and driving the extinction of 
American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2898.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wyoming, who has 
been a huge support on this legislation.
  I hear on the other side that there are no real solutions in this 
bill, real solutions that actually help deliver water; and that 
frustrates me to no end because there are a lot of solutions that have 
a lot of support.
  We also hear that this delta smelt has had no impact on pumping this 
water out of the delta, when the Bureau of Reclamation, through their 
own estimates, say about a million acre-feet annually is impacted 
between the Central Valley project and the State water project. That is 
a government agency that is doing the restricting and holding back the 
water that is telling us themselves.
  Then every year in the news, we hear another three fish were caught 
in the pumps. They are looking and counting, and they are already 
starting to figure out when they are going to turn the pumps off again 
so they can restrict the pumping of those fish.
  Then we hear this does not have an impact on farmworkers. Farmworkers 
aren't looking for your handouts. They are sick and tired of sitting at 
home and taking a check. They want to work. They want to produce.
  They want to walk into a grocery store with the money they earned and 
purchase the products that they were involved in growing. To them, that 
is a sign of the American dream. It is a sign of having the opportunity 
to produce and to be a productive member of society and to show their 
family and raise their family in an environment that allows them to 
grow with a little bit of respect and dignity for what they do.
  Now, as far as the solutions in this bill that they claim don't 
exist, reservoirs are a big deal. That is what holds water so that we 
can use it for later on in periods like now. We actually asked to 
streamline the process so we can get those approved quicker.
  We have asked to end the studies that have been going on for nearly 
15 years. We are 13 years into it, and $150 million of taxpayer money 
has been spent studying these things to no end. We want to end that. I 
don't think that is unreasonable. The President seems to think it is, 
but I don't see how it possibly could be.
  We target predator species that are actually having an impact on the 
delta smelt. According to studies, you hear about 95 percent of those 
delta smelt and salmonoid are being consumed by these predator species. 
We offer a solution in order to take care of that problem.
  Real science, we asked for a layer of bureaucracy. My opponent or my 
friend from the other side seems to think it is a layer of bureaucracy, 
but we are asking for real science to be put in place to make sure 
that, when we decide to turn off these pumps to hurt the communities in 
the Central Valley, to put these people out of work, that real science 
is actually used; and we actually try to verify that things are 
actually accomplishing something when we turn these pumps off.
  As far as hearings, we have had hearings. We wanted those hearings in 
the valley. We took the request of our friends on the other side, and 
we had the hearing right there in Fresno in the heart of the problem so 
they can see for themselves what this is causing, what effect this is 
having in our communities.
  Like my friend from Wyoming mentioned, we had one person show up; and 
I would like to thank that gentleman for coming, Mr. Costa, and 
spending some time. It is his hometown, so he understands the issue 
well.
  This is something that we take very seriously. This bill is a 
comprehensive bill that covers a lot of different topics, but it also 
helps deliver real water. I don't know what the difference between wet 
water and dry water is, but we are looking to deliver real water to the 
valley.
  If this didn't deliver real water like they claim, what are they 
afraid of? What is the fear of this legislation passing if it doesn't 
deliver, in their own words?
  We are looking to get some water, helping our community and helping 
people get back to work and grow delicious, wonderful American food 
that we are very proud of.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite testimony from the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service before the State water board 
just a few months ago, February 18, 2015, in which they testified the 
delta smelt biological opinion has not required mandatory restrictions 
on water exports since early 2013, over 2 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa), my distinguished colleague from Fresno.
  I do not agree with him on this particular bill, but I do want to say 
that he has been a champion for his district and certainly has great 
command of the water issue.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me 2 minutes.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Western Water and 
American Food Security Act that we are debating here today.
  Yes, we are debating this issue, and this is not new. What you have 
exhibited here and seen this morning is where the water fault lines lie 
in California, and it also is reflective of many of the Western States.
  This 4 years of historic drought has pointed out clearly that we have 
a broken water system in California. Here we are on the floor, having 
another debate over whether or not we are going to pass a bill to help 
people because, at the end of the day, these are people problems, 
people problems in every region of California.
  Nowhere have those people been more impacted than in the San Joaquin 
Valley, which much of us represent. These are families where parents 
have lost their jobs, whose children are not able to attend school. 
These are farmworkers, these are farm communities that have felt the 
most severe impact of this drought and the water constraints that we 
now are dealing with.
  My colleagues on the Democratic side argue that this is simply a 
cause of 4 continuous dry years, and while that is partially true, it 
ignores that that talking point doesn't recognize that, in fact, we 
have a broken water system designed for 20 million people.
  Communities in the San Joaquin Valley have seen their water supply 
reduced long term by 40 percent, and agricultural use has declined over 
the last 40 years because we are more efficient water users. Some, in 
my area, have had a zero water allocation the last 2 years. Zero, that 
is no water.
  This reduced reliability has impacted every region of the State to be 
sure. It has impacted large metropolitan areas like the Silicon Valley, 
Los Angeles, San Diego, as well as the small rural

[[Page 11736]]

and often disadvantaged communities like those in the valley that I 
represent.
  This measure, H.R. 2898, takes a step toward addressing this 
longstanding imbalance by enhancing scientific management of the water 
projects in California and then giving it greater flexibility. It also 
provides additional storage.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman. It provides additional 
flexibility to increase our water supply. We have to use all the water 
tools in the water management toolbox, and that includes increasing 
storage capacity, and it is about time that we began doing that.
  It also tries to address many of the other factors that are 
preventing the recovery of endangered species, like the invasive 
species that are the result of a lot of the decline in salmon in 
California.
  Let me quote Karen Hesse, an author of ``Out of the Dust.'' She said: 
``The way I see it, hard times aren't only about money or drought or 
dust. Hard times are about losing the spirit and hope and what happens 
when dreams dry up.''
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that a lot of the 
dreams are drying up in the people that I represent in the San Joaquin 
Valley. This drought is crushing their spirit, making them feel as if 
their dreams never become a reality and too often feel like they are 
the country cousin, literally and figuratively, of the two urban areas 
in southern California and northern California.
  The solution that California needs is not more talking points, but 
legislation working together on a bipartisan basis. This legislation 
starts that process. It is a work in progress. Obviously, it will be 
amended.
  It will be changed as we work with the Senate later this fall.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding; and 
I thank my colleague on the other side, Mr. Costa, for his work on this 
in the bipartisan bill. I thank Congressman Valadao for bringing it to 
the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a place that is called, for a very good 
reason, ``America's salad bowl.'' We produce the vegetables; we produce 
the fruits, and we produce the nuts that feed the Nation.
  The Nation should know what the people in my district know: Food 
grows where water flows, and no water equals higher food costs.
  That is what the signs read across the district if you drive down the 
highways, but you can see trouble in more than just the signs you read. 
You see it in the parched farmlands, in the reservoirs that are all but 
empty, and in the faces of those whose jobs have dried up with the 
water.
  Now, I am talking about this as a Californian, a native from 
Bakersfield, but this isn't a local problem. Half of the produce we eat 
in America is grown in California, and California is the eighth largest 
economy in the world. When California hurts, the entire Nation hurts as 
well.
  This is even bigger than just California. Almost 40 percent of the 
West is facing a severe drought, and it is undeniably clear that the 
status quo is unsustainable.
  If we do nothing, people will lose their livelihoods; water prices 
also continue to go up, and America will have to rely more and more on 
foreign food, perhaps from countries that don't have the same labor or 
environmental laws that we do.
  Now, we can't make it rain, but we can't give up either. Some people 
want to do just that, Mr. Chairman; some believe that our way of life 
has to change, that it is time to focus on conservation above all and 
manage our decline. I reject that.
  If California is in decline, then the American West is in decline, 
and the hope of so many generations is in decline. We will lose that 
pioneering spirit that will lead us through the 21st century.
  Now, we have a bill before us today that rejects the idea that we 
have reached the heights of the shining city on a hill and that it is 
time to come back down to a world of limits and of uncertainty. We have 
never accepted failure; nothing, not even a historic drought, will make 
us start now.
  Here in the House, we have tried time and again to address this 
problem. This Congress, the last two Congresses, have addressed it 
before we hit a historic drought. Let's not forget, just 5 years ago, 
we had 172 percent of snowpack.
  We talk a lot about desalinization, and I support it. What does 
desalinization do? It takes saltwater and makes it freshwater. Why in 
California do we allow our freshwater to become saltwater? Shouldn't we 
protect that first?
  This bill takes ideas from both sides, as we just heard from 
Congressman Costa and from this side. We designed the bill to move as 
much water down south to our farms and to our cities as possible 
without making any fundamental changes to the environmental law.
  In reality, this bill is very simple. It does four things in 
California. We allow water to flow through the delta. We create a 
process to build more storage that has been promised so many years 
before but has been held in bureaucratic red tape. We will increase the 
reservoirs, and we will protect the senior water rights and the 
California State water project.
  This drought also extends beyond California. That is why this bill 
includes so many provisions to help our friends in the Western States 
through their tough times as well.
  You see, Mr. Chairman, we have a challenge before us. It is a 
challenge of nature, yes; but it is also a change of policy, foresight, 
and plain common sense. For decades, our State and country have faced 
droughts. For years, Californians have endured this drought.
  Now, we are here today to move forward toward a solution. It is a 
solution built upon ideas from, yes, Democrats and Republicans. It is a 
solution that rejects the idea of decline and failure and says with a 
clear voice: We will not let the drought defeat us.
  California is better than that; the West is better than that, and, 
Mr. Chairman, America is better than that. We will not lose hope. We 
will solve the problem with or without you.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the balance of my 
time?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 15\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the majority leader's 
statements about when freshwater becomes saltwater.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson), who represents the part of California that understands the 
incredible ecological and economic value of that mixing zone where 
freshwater becomes saltwater, and represents communities that are on 
that thin blue line depending on that point at which freshwater becomes 
saltwater. And if it were compromised, and if that saltwater were 
allowed to intrude by virtue of some of the provisions in this bill, he 
represents the front line of communities that would be very adversely 
impacted.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely correct. In my district, if that 
freshwater doesn't run through and run out to the ocean, the saltwater 
runs back in. I have two major cities in my district that rely on that 
for a source of water. If this bill were to pass, their water supply is 
in jeopardy. You can't drink saltwater; it just doesn't work.
  California is in the middle of a very extreme drought. It is not due 
to a lack of pumping; it is not because of our State's water 
regulations, and it is not because we are putting fish ahead of farms 
and people. It is because there is no rain and there is no snow. No 
bill

[[Page 11737]]

can make it rain, but this bill makes a bad situation even worse. It is 
wrong for California. It won't stop the drought; it won't make it rain; 
but it will kill jobs, and it will ruin drinking water for millions of 
Californians.
  The State of California won't support this bill because it ignores 20 
years of established science and undermines our extensive efforts to 
implement equal measures to address longstanding water shortages.
  We have been down this road before in California. We ignored science 
and we diverted water out of the Klamath River, and nearly 80,000 
spawning salmon died. Communities were devastated and livelihoods were 
lost.
  This bill also sets a dangerous precedent for every other State in 
our country. California has longstanding water management rules. This 
bill overrides the very system of water regulations that Californians 
themselves devised to govern our State's water supply. It tells local 
resource managers and water districts how to administer their water 
supply.
  If we pass this bill, we are telling every State in America that we 
are okay with the Federal Government undermining local experts and 
State laws from coast to coast. If that weren't enough, this bill also 
undercuts longstanding environmental laws.
  The legislation we are debating today redefines the standard by which 
the Endangered Species Act is applied. This will weaken the law, 
increase the risk of species extinction, and lead to countless lawsuits 
and costly litigation. It is as if the majority is holding wildlife 
responsible for our lack of rain.
  You will hear the other side talk about a little fish, the delta 
smelt, and how we are protecting fish at the expense of people. The 
truth is, as the gentleman from California mentioned, that protection 
of the smelt hasn't prevented one drop of water from being pumped south 
since 2013. We haven't pumped more water south because there simply 
isn't enough water. We are in a drought.
  I am not insensitive to the supply and demand reality of California's 
water. I understand the concerns of the Central Valley farmers. I am a 
farmer myself. But if my well runs dry, the solution isn't to steal the 
water from my neighbors. We need real solutions that are based on 
science and that work for everyone. This bill is not that solution. It 
is bad for California; it is bad for other States; it is bad for our 
environment.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, facts are stubborn things. According to 
the Bureau of Reclamation, biological opinions involving species did 
reduce Central Valley's exports by 62,200 acre-feet in 2014. Already 
this year, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, species have reduced 
Central Valley project waters to farmers by 280,000 acre-feet. Again, 
my source is the Bureau of Reclamation.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the other day, Topper Shutt in his 
broadcast, said, ``Today is going to be a glorious day.'' He obviously 
was talking about the sunshine outside, which means we should have done 
this bill yesterday so I could be on my deck right now, but that is 
beside the point.
  This is, though, a glorious day because we are finally doing a 
solution that helps people. Instead of just kicking the can down the 
road again for another year, we are going to find a solution to this 
problem, this problem of a drought that is affecting the entire West to 
such a degree that one would think that Nostradamus' quatrains have 
come true. But what we are doing here is finding a solution.
  Many of the opponents of this bill would simply say let's pass more 
rain dances and hope something happens. What we are doing here is 
taking the advice of our pioneer forefathers and saying what we have, 
save. Do it as storage. And not just for California, but for the entire 
West. That is the purpose behind this particular bill.
  There are some concerns about environmental issues that may or may 
not have been wise to do in the past. That is not the concern of this 
bill. We are not stopping any of that. What we are doing is finding a 
creative way to provide for that, but also provide a way of getting 
water to people where they need it.
  In the middle of the last century, we did water projects and 
hydropower projects that helped us win the war. Now is the time to do 
water projects and hydropower projects to help us feed people in this 
Nation and in the entire world and to help out areas that have up to 50 
percent unemployment. I have been down there and I have seen those 
particular communities, many of them first- and second-generation 
Americans, minorities who only want to provide a decent living for 
themselves and for their families and to work.
  What we need to do is actually solve this problem so we can put 
people to work to provide food for this country and to provide jobs for 
people and to help people. That is what this bill is about: finally 
helping people with creative solutions. If the Romans could build an 
aqueduct system to move water, we can build a system to move water that 
actually helps people. This is about people.
  Pass this bill. Let's move it on. Let's solve the problem.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), my colleague from Los 
Angeles, a city that, frankly, is pioneering some of the most promising 
water management strategies we have in California, strategies that are 
reflected in our alternative bill, for which I am grateful Mr. Cardenas 
is a cosponsor. They are stretching water supplies not just using 
imported water wisely, but managing recycled water, groundwater, 
treating storm water, working on the cutting edge. They deserve Federal 
support for those proven strategies, support that our colleagues across 
the aisle have withheld for too many years.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time. Thank you for your wonderful work always on these issues.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate, 
a failure to communicate our priorities, but, more importantly, as 
legislators, a failure to work on compromise.
  California is currently facing a historic drought. We can no longer 
take water for granted. Every single Californian has been forced to 
examine how much we truly depend on clean, reliable water in our 
everyday lives. Cities, residents, and businesses around the State are 
cutting back, but it is not enough. Unless the Western United States 
experiences significant rainfall in the near future, we will see ghost 
towns in extreme hardship for the most at-risk populations of our 
State.
  While much of the coverage in the media has been on brown lawns 
across the State and the rationing that is going on, the real impacts 
threaten the lives of hard-working families throughout our State.
  Take a trip through California's Central Valley. There you will see 
the gravity of the situation. You will see unemployment rates double or 
triple the national average, forcing families into makeshift dwellings 
that remind us of the Hoovervilles during the Dust Bowl. These families 
aren't thinking of their brown lawns. They are thinking of the fact 
that they have lost their home. These families want their jobs back. 
They want to go to work so that they can feed their children.
  This bill and the various Democratic alternatives are works in 
progress. We have to find a solution, but this bill is not it.
  If we are serious about facing the challenges our constituents sent 
us here to solve, I am ready and willing to work with you, and with 
you, to make the necessary, tough decisions and compromises.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Costa, whose district is facing 
the most significant impacts, and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara 
Boxer to craft a stronger bipartisan and bicameral solution.
  We have no choice but to find better ways to capture and transport 
water in all parts of the State to meet the needs

[[Page 11738]]

of the people and our economy while protecting the environment and 
delicate species. We must not use this time of need as a way to pick 
partisan fights. We have to find legislation that protects our 
environment while we also protect California families.
  Lives are at stake. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to come together 
and work together.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and 
Environment of the House Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again, debating solutions to California's 
water woes, with each side making similar arguments we have heard for 
years.
  In fact, more than a decade ago, I was standing in this very spot, in 
the middle of the debate of the last significant Western water law that 
Congress has passed. We passed the CALFED law in 2004 and hoped that it 
would help California establish reliable and affordable water supplies 
that would help us get through dry spells like we are currently 
experiencing.
  So why are we back here again debating many of the same issues? The 
simplest answer to that question is we allowed the ``don't build 
anything'' faction in California to block the critical investments we 
need to make in our State's water infrastructure.
  The CALFED law authorized feasibility studies for large water storage 
projects like Temperance Flat, Sites Reservoir, Upper San Joaquin, 
expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and raising Shasta Dam. A decade 
later, our State's population has grown by 3 million new residents, and 
those projects are still being studied. Think about that for a second. 
California's population has grown the same amount as the population of 
the entire State of Iowa, and we haven't made a significant investment 
in our water infrastructure to accommodate those residents.
  It is well past time to stop talking about these projects and start 
building them. Thankfully, the bill before us will move us in that 
direction by requiring our resource agencies to finally complete those 
decade-long feasibility studies.
  Of course, building water storage doesn't help us in the short term, 
and it also requires excess water that can be diverted. That is why the 
Western Water and American Food Security Act injects commonsense and 
science in the operation of our water infrastructure.
  When it does rain again, we simply can't afford to make the same 
mistakes we have made in the past and allow millions of gallons to flow 
out to the Pacific Ocean. Those wasted flows don't benefit the 
environment, farmers, or California residents, and they must be 
directed to a higher, better use.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a clear choice before us today. We 
can continue to listen to those who oppose investing in California's 
water infrastructure and we can believe we can restrict our way out of 
this problem, or we can recognize that California's situation today is 
far worse than it should be precisely because of our failure to build 
adequate water storage and restore more science and commonsense into 
our water policies that are operating today.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support the Western Water and 
American Food Security Act so that we can avoid being back here on the 
House floor during California's next drought having these very same 
arguments.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi), from the Sacramento Valley.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues.
  We have been here before. I have listened to my colleagues who are 
the proponents of this bill over the last 5 years. As the previous 
speaker said, we have gone down this path before.
  There really is a solution. Unfortunately, I guess all of us, in one 
way or another, hang on to our past rhetoric and ignore the opportunity 
that really demands our attention now to develop a comprehensive, good 
policy for California.

                              {time}  1015

  There is a lot in this bill that goes in the proper direction, and it 
is an improvement over the past bills. There is no doubt about it.
  The issue of moving forward with the projects that are necessary, 
that is all good, dams and other kinds of programs and the aquifer 
restoration. It is a good deal. However, in this bill, there are things 
that are very, very troublesome.
  You cannot mandate by law the operations of the water systems in 
California or anywhere else. You cannot specify how they will be 
operating because you do not know on a day-to-day or a year-to-year or 
a month-to-month basis what is actually going to be on the ground.
  So that portion of the bill that sets out those operating procedures 
should be removed. Goals, yes. Operating procedures, no. It just won't 
work.
  As said by both the Federal and State governments, if you were to 
move this bill forward into law, you would create chaos in California. 
Every paragraph, every comma, every word, in California water law--both 
in law and in court decisions--sets the precedent, but, unfortunately, 
this bill overrides that.
  We are very close to it. We can put this together. My colleague, Mr. 
Huffman, has a proposal that is comprehensive, and it ought to be 
integrated into our programs and it ought to be integrated into this 
bill. But the kind of compromise and discussion that is necessary to 
develop a law that actually works has not been undertaken.
  I would urge my colleagues, the proponents of this bill, to slow it 
down, to let the State and Federal Governments continue to do what they 
are doing, and that is to operate this system to the maximum potential 
despite the fact that there is very, very little water.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We can do this, but we have to work together. 
Unfortunately, that has not occurred; so I urge my colleagues, the 
proponents of this bill, to take the time to meet with those of us who 
will be the losers if this bill moves forward. We can all be winners.
  I draw your attention to Mr. Huffman's legislation, which is 
comprehensive, which will work, and which could be integrated into this 
legislation.
  In the meantime, I continue to oppose it.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, when I was in the Central 
Valley in California, I saw chaos. It is already happening, and the 
people are desperate for a solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, for 7 or 8 years, continually, the 
Republicans have offered solutions and, continually, nearly all of the 
Democrats have voted ``no.''
  This isn't about solutions, because the real solution the left wants 
is to idle over a million acres of farm ground in the San Joaquin 
Valley. This is why the forefathers of our State built a system that 
would withstand a drought of 5 years.
  Look, we need additional storage, but everyone in this body--anyone 
who knows anything about water--knows that, if you don't fix the 
plumbing in the delta, if you don't deal with the San Joaquin River 
settlement and if you don't build a few new storage projects, over a 
million acres of farm ground are going to go idle.

[[Page 11739]]

  Those are the facts. Conveniently, most of my friends who are up here 
speaking on the left live in the coastal areas and get their water--
they steal their water--from our area to give themselves pristine 
drinking water. That is what they do.
  Now we are going to be left with the chaos that has developed from 
over a million acres of farm ground coming out of production unless the 
Senate can take and act on this legislation quickly.
  Mr. Chair, in the summer of 2002, shortly before I was elected to 
Congress, I sat through an eye-opening meeting with representatives 
from the Natural Resources Defense Council and several local 
environmental activist groups. Hoping to convince me to support various 
water restrictions, they argued that San Joaquin Valley farmers should 
stop growing alfalfa and cotton in order to save water--though they 
allowed that the planting of high-value crops such as almonds could 
continue.
  Then, as our discussion turned to the groups' overall vision for the 
San Joaquin Valley, they told me something astonishing:
  Their goal was to remove 1.3 million acres of farmland from 
production. They showed me maps that laid out their whole plan: From 
Merced all the way down to Bakersfield, and on the entire west side of 
the Valley as well as part of the east side, productive agriculture 
would end and the land would return to some ideal state of nature. I 
was stunned by the vicious audacity of their goal--and I quickly 
learned how dedicated they were to realizing it.


                How to Steal Water and get away with it

  For decades, extreme environmentalists have pursued this goal in 
California with relentless determination. The method they have used to 
depopulate the targeted land--water deprivation--has been ruthless and 
effective.
  Much of the media and many politicians blame the San Joaquin Valley's 
water shortage on drought, but that is merely an aggravating factor. 
From my experience representing California's agricultural heartland, I 
know that our water crisis is not an unfortunate natural occurrence; it 
is the intended result of a long-term campaign waged by radical 
environmentalists who resorted to political pressure as well as profuse 
lawsuits.
  Working in cooperation with sympathetic judges and friendly federal 
and state officials, environmental groups have gone to extreme lengths 
to deprive the San Joaquin Valley, the heart of much of the U.S. 
agricultural production, of much-needed water. Consider the following 
actions they took:
  The Central Valley Project Improvement Act: Backed by the NRDC, 
Sierra Club and other extreme environmental groups, large Democratic 
majorities in Congress passed the CVPIA in 1992 after attaching it to a 
must-pass public lands bill. The act stipulated that 800,000 acre-feet 
of water--or 260 billion gallons--on the Valley's west side had to be 
diverted annually to environmental causes, with an additional 400,000 
acre-feet later being diverted annually to wildlife refuges.
  Smelt and salmon biological opinions: Lawsuits filed by the NRDC and 
similar organizations forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to issue, respectively, biological 
opinions on smelt (in 2008) and on salmon (in 2009). These opinions 
virtually ended operation of the Jones and Banks pumping plants--the 
two major pumping stations that move San Joaquin River Delta water--and 
resulted in massive diversions of water for environmental purposes.
  The San Joaquin River Settlement: After nearly two decades of 
litigation related to a lawsuit filed in 1988 by the National Resources 
Defense Council, Sierra Club and other environmental groups, San 
Joaquin Valley agriculture organizations agreed to a settlement in 
2006, later approved by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by 
President Obama. The settlement created the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Program. The program, which aims to create salmon runs 
along the San Joaquin River, required major new water diversions from 
Valley communities. Despite warnings from me and other California 
Republicans, agriculture groups naively approved the settlement based 
on false promises by the settlement's supporters that Valley water 
supplies would eventually be restored at some future, unspecified date.
  Groundwater regulation: In September 2014, California Gov. Jerry 
Brown approved regulations requiring that water basins implement plans 
to achieve ``groundwater sustainability''--essentially limiting how 
much water locals can use from underground storage supplies. But these 
pumping restrictions, slated to take effect over the next decade, will 
reduce access to what has become the final water source for many Valley 
communities, which have increasingly turned to groundwater pumping as 
their surface water supplies were drastically cut.


                         A Litany Of Hypocrisy

  As radical groups have pursued this campaign to dry up the San 
Joaquin Valley, it's worth noting some of their stunning 
contradictions, hypocrisies, fallacies and failures:
  ``There's not enough water in California'': Environmentalists often 
claim that the California water crisis stems from the state not having 
enough water to satisfy its rapidly growing population, especially 
during a drought.
  However, the state in fact has abundant water flowing into the Delta, 
which is the heart of California's irrigation structure. Water that 
originates in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains runs off into 
the Delta, which has two pumping stations that help distribute the 
water throughout the state.
  But on average, due to environmental regulations as well as a lack of 
water storage capacity (attributable, in large part, to activist 
groups' opposition to new storage projects), 70% of the water that 
enters the Delta is simply flushed into the ocean. California's water 
infrastructure was designed to withstand five years of drought, so the 
current crisis, which began about three years ago, should not be a 
crisis at all. During those three years, the state has flushed more 
than 2 million acre-feet of water--or 652 billion gallons--into the 
ocean due to the aforementioned biological opinions, which have 
prevented the irrigation infrastructure from operating at full 
capacity.
  ``Farmers use 80% of California's water'': Having deliberately 
reduced the California water supply through decades of litigation, the 
radicals now need a scapegoat for the resulting crisis. So they blame 
farmers (``big agriculture,'' as they call them) for using 80% of the 
state's water.
  This statistic, widely parroted by the media and some politicians, is 
a gross distortion. Of the water that is captured for use, farmers get 
40%, cities get 10% and a full 50% goes to environmental purposes--that 
is, it gets flushed into the ocean. By arbitrarily excluding the huge 
environmental water diversion from their calculations--as if it is 
somehow irrelevant to the water crisis--environmentalists deceptively 
double the farmers' usage from 40% to 80%.
  If at first you don't succeed, do the exact same thing: Many of the 
Delta water cuts stem from the radicals' litigation meant to protect 
salmon and smelt. Yet after decades of water reductions, the salmon 
population fluctuates wildly, while the smelt population has fallen to 
historic lows. The radicals' solution, however, is always to dump even 
more water from the Delta into the ocean, even though this approach has 
failed time and again.
  The striped bass absurdity: If the radicals really want to protect 
salmon and the Delta smelt, its a bit of a mystery why they also 
champion protections for the striped bass, a non-native species that 
eats both salmon and smelt.
  Hetch Hetchy hypocrites: The San Francisco Bay Area provides a 
primary support base for many environmental groups. Lucky for them, 
their supporters don't have to endure the kinds of hardships these 
organizations have foisted on San Joaquin Valley communities.
  While the radicals push for ever-harsher water restrictions in the 
Valley, their Bay Area supporters enjoy an unimpeded water supply piped 
in across the state from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite 
National Park. This water is diverted around the Delta, meaning it does 
not contribute to the Delta's water quality standards. Environmental 
groups have conveniently decided not to subject Hetch Hetchy water to 
any sort of litigation that would cut the supply to the Bay Area.
  We're from the government, and we're here to help: Government 
agencies that catch smelt as part of scientific population measurements 
actually kill more of the fish than are destroyed in the supposedly 
killer water pumps.
  Hitchhiking salmon: The San Joaquin River Settlement is estimated 
already to have cost taxpayers $1.2 billion--and it's clear to me that 
the total price tag will likely exceed $2 billion--in a disastrous 
effort to restore salmon runs to the San Joaquin River.
  Moreover, the settlement legislation defines success as reintroducing 
500 salmon to the river, which means spending $4 million per fish. The 
salmon, which have not been in the river for more than half a century, 
have proved so incapable of sustaining themselves that agents have 
resorted to plucking them out of the water and trucking them wherever 
they are supposed to go. It is a badly kept secret among both 
environmentalists and federal officials that this project has already 
failed.

[[Page 11740]]

  A man-made state of nature: The radicals claim they want to reverse 
human depredations in the Delta and restore fish to their natural 
habitat. Yet the entire Delta system is not natural at all. It's a man-
made network of islands that functions only thanks to upstream water 
storage projects. In fact, without man-made storage projects, canals 
and dams, in dry years such as this the rivers would quickly run dry, 
meaning there would be no water and no fish.


                         A Three-Step Solution

  The radicals have pursued their plan methodically and successfully; 
between the CVPIA, the biological opinions, and the San Joaquin River 
Settlement, around a million acres of farmland have been idled. What's 
left of the water supply is inadequate for sustaining Valley farming 
communities: South of the Delta, we now face an annual water supply 
deficit of approximately 2.5 million acre-feet, or 815 billion gallons.
  In fact, with the state groundwater regulations announced last year, 
the radicals are poised to achieve their goal. The depletion of 
groundwater is a direct effect--and indeed, was an intended result--of 
the radicals' assault on our surface water.
  (After all, if farmers, churches, schools and communities can't get 
surface water, they'll predictably resort to ground water.)
  But the radicals have perversely cited the groundwater depletion they 
themselves engineered to justify regulating the groundwater supply. 
This is the final step in their program, since many farmers will not be 
able to keep growing food if they continue to receive zero water 
allocations and are restricted from tapping enough ground water.
  The Valley cannot endure this situation much longer, but the good 
news is that it's not too late to save our communities. Led by the 
Valley's Republican delegation, the U.S. House has passed legislation 
twice that would bring a long-term end to the water crisis. The 
solution comprises these three simple measures:
  Return Delta pumping to normal operations at federal and state pumps. 
Because normal pumping levels are already paid for, this measure would 
cost taxpayers zero dollars.
  Fix the San Joaquin River Settlement. Instead of continuing to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars on an unworkable scheme to recreate 
salmon runs, we should turn the San Joaquin River into a year-round 
flowing river with recirculated water This approach would be good for 
the warm-water fish habitat and for recreation, and it would save 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars that will otherwise go down 
the salmon-run rat hole.
  Expedite and approve construction of major new water projects. This 
should include building the Temperance Flat dam along the San Joaquin 
River, raising Shasta dam to increase its reservoir capacity, expanding 
the San Luis Reservoir and approving construction of the Sites 
Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley. Because water users themselves 
should rightfully pay for these projects, they would cost federal 
taxpayers zero dollars.
  These measures would not only end the water crisis, they would 
improve the environment for fish and wildlife--all while saving 
taxpayer dollars.


                         The Price Of Inaction

  I warned of the likely outcome of the radicals' campaign in my 
testimony to a House committee back in 2009:
  ``Failure to act, and it's over. You will witness the collapse of 
modern civilization in the San Joaquin Valley.''
  That is indeed the grim future facing the Valley if we don't change 
our present trajectory. The solution passed twice by the U.S. House, 
however, was blocked by Senate Democrats, who were supported by the 
administration of Gov. Brown as well as the Obama administration. These 
Democrats need to begin speaking frankly and honestly with San Joaquin 
Valley communities, and with Californians more broadly, about the 
effects of idling 1.3 million acres of farmland. This will ruin not 
only Valley farming operations, but will wipe out entire swathes of 
associated local businesses and industries.
  The damage is not limited to the Valley. Although residents of 
coastal areas such as Los Angeles, the Bay Area and San Diego have been 
led to believe they are being subject to water restrictions due to the 
drought, that's not actually true. As in the Valley, these areas and 
many others ultimately depend on the Delta pumps for their water 
supply. If the pumps had been functioning normally for the past decade, 
none of these cities would be undergoing a water crisis today.
  And it's a safe bet that Brown's mandatory water reductions will not 
alleviate the crisis, leading to a drastic increase in restrictions in 
the not-too-distant future. Watering your lawn, washing your car and 
countless other everyday activities will be banned up and down 
California. In their mania to attack Central Valley farming, the 
radicals are inadvertently running the entire state out of water.


                                Endgame

  Many organizations representing California agriculture, including 
water districts and--shockingly--even some San Joaquin Valley cities 
and counties, became part of the problem instead of the solution, 
having lent no support to the House-passed water bills. Suffering from 
a strange kind of Stockholm Syndrome, many of these groups and agencies 
hope that if they meekly accept their fate, their overlords will 
magnanimously bestow a few drops of water on them.
  This mousy strategy, which willfully ignores what the radicals are 
really trying to achieve, hasn't worked out well for growers of almonds 
and other high-value crops. Although the radicals had been promising 
them a free pass back when the groups met with me in 2002, these 
growers have CS now become the radicals' primary scapegoat for the 
water crisis. This condemnation is reflected in articles such as The 
Atlantic's ``The Dark Side of Almond Use,'' The Guardian's ``Alarm as 
Almond Farms Consume California's Water,'' and Bloomberg View's ``Amid 
a Drought, Cue the Almond Shaming.''
  Sadly, the end is near for communities whose land will be forced out 
of production. One hopes the affected families will eventually find a 
more welcome home in some other state where those who wield power 
appreciate folks who grow our food instead of demonize them.
  But for now, the pitiless, decades-long assault to deprive them of 
their livelihoods is hurtling toward its apex. Meanwhile, many of those 
capable of advancing a solution are content to wring their hands, blame 
global warming and continue whistling past the graveyard.
  Agriculture groups, water districts and municipalities that refuse to 
support the two House-passed bills owe their constituents an 
alternative solution that will resolve our water shortfall. Water 
bureaucrats who ignore or oppose the most prominent, viable solutions 
while offering no alternative are, in effect, complicit in the 
radicals' long struggle. They should publicly declare which land ought 
to come out of production and which Valley industries should be 
eliminated since they have no proposals to steer us away from that 
outcome.
  The Valley's critical situation today demands unity around 
constructive solutions. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must all 
hang together, or we will surely all hang separately.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, some will say they are not voting for this bill because 
of the challenges they perceive are in it. The biggest problem with 
this bill is that it doesn't do enough.
  We need millions of new acre-feet of water. We should be looking at 
the next generation. I want my kids to farm, but without new water 
supplies, we continue to see farmers go out of business.
  That speaks to the security of our food supply as a country. You 
can't farm with a zero allocation of water, which is why you see the 
high unemployment, which is why you see farmworkers who are going to be 
homeless and without jobs this year, which is why you will see more 
farms go out of business.
  This is a battle that has gone on for quite some time, but this bill 
deals with some very small issues that will be very significant this 
year.
  We need to have the full debate about what our country is going to do 
with its water supplies and the greater storage that we are going to 
need in the future.
  Yet, we are dealing with some commonsense issues like predator fish? 
Why would we try to save fish only to allow them to be eaten by a 
nonnative fish that eats 98 percent of the fish that we are spending 
millions of dollars to preserve?
  That is not an environmental solution any more than trucking fish 
around a river because the river can't handle the fish.
  If you want to be an extremist, be an extremist and deal with the 
commonsense solution here. This bill moves us in the right direction.
  This will help farms stay in business, and this will allow us to 
continue to

[[Page 11741]]

have jobs in the Central Valley and a vibrant food supply for the rest 
of the country.
  This bill is ripe for passing this morning, and we would ask for a 
bipartisan vote.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Western Water and American 
Food Security Act of 2015.
  My Water Rights Protection Act, incorporated as part of H.R. 2898, 
would uphold State water law and priority-based systems and provide 
water users with a line of defense from increasingly brazen Federal 
attempts to take private water rights without compensation.
  These Federal water grabs undermine long-held State water law, 
priority-based systems, and our private priority rights. By extorting 
water rights from those who hold water rights under State law, the 
Federal Government is overreaching, violating private property rights 
and the U.S. Constitution.
  Federal land management agency attempts to take or to control private 
water rights and circumvent State law have put the ski community, 
grazers, municipalities, and local businesses at risk.
  These private property rights are vital to Colorado and to the 
Western U.S. when it pertains to water. Many businesses depend on them 
as collateral to be able to get loans, expand, and create jobs.
  Water is our lifeblood. Water users need certainty that the Federal 
land management agencies are prohibited from future attempts to take 
privately held water rights.
  This legislation offers a sensible approach to preserve those rights. 
I urge its passage.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I was going to put this 
up, but I don't know how to work the tripod very well. But it is a very 
important issue, and this is a very important chart because many have 
asked: Why would somebody from Illinois come talk about a bill that has 
to do with water in California?
  Look at this chart. 99 percent of the almonds, 99 percent of the 
dates, and 99 percent of the kiwis that we eat in central Illinois, in 
my district, come from the Central Valley of California. All of those 
crops need water to grow.
  Now, I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Valadao) for 
introducing this bill. This is important to me because I have seen the 
Central Valley of California. I understand the importance of this 
industry to my consumers and as the subcommittee chairman on the House 
Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, 
and Research.
  The issues we face here--changing policies in Washington, D.C.--
affect the price of food that my consumers pay back in Illinois and 
affect the many Californians living in the Central Valley who are 
dealing with this tremendous issue.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. I want to thank all of my 
colleagues who are here today and encourage them once more.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this year marks 
California's fourth consecutive year of the drought. In California 
alone, over 37 million people are impacted by the drought.
  The economic cost of the drought is expected to be nearly $3 billion, 
and almost 19,000 agriculture-related jobs will be lost as a result.
  Our current drought is not the result of a lack of rain. It is the 
result of failed policies that have mismanaged critical water resources 
throughout the West.
  My colleagues and I in the House come before you today with a 
solution: the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015. 
This vital bill will modernize our water infrastructure into the 21st 
century and will ensure that California is well equipped to handle 
future drought crises.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to stand with me as we 
work to provide Californians with the water resources they need.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Knight).
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2898, the Western 
Water and American Food Security Act. And I will give just a couple of 
examples.
  I live in the desert of southern California. I am not a northern 
California person, and I am not a Central Valley person, but I am a 
desert rat in California who understands water is imperative to all of 
our needs.
  What is happening in my district right now is a 35 percent reduction 
in water. That is what they are requesting. All of our water companies 
have come forward and have said that they are raising the rates between 
30 and 40 percent.
  Now, let me tell you that you cannot reduce your water by 35 percent. 
You just cannot do it in a single family house. You can reduce. You can 
get down to about 10 or 15 percent. But when you are talking 35 
percent, it just doesn't happen. That is the life we are living in 
today.
  I have been sitting here for about an hour, and I have taken a few 
notes about what might happen if we pass this.
  One of the things that hit me was reignite the environmental wars, 
reignite the problems that we are having with water in California.
  Let me tell you that I don't believe there is a State in the Union 
that is going through as many adjudications of water than is happening 
in California right now.
  If we are talking about reigniting the water wars or about reigniting 
the environmental wars, they are happening today, right now.
  In my district alone, we have water adjudication that has been going 
on for 17 years. If we are talking about reigniting the environmental 
wars, it is happening right now, today. It is not just the delta smelt. 
It is the environmental impacts that we are putting on fish above 
people.
  In my district, again, we have an issue where the Department of Water 
and Power from L.A. cannot release water down a canyon to help the 
people in the canyon because we have the stickleback fish in there.
  They are afraid that it is going to harm that fish; so they have 
reduced the water from 1,200 acre-feet a year to 300 acre-feet. The 
environmental wars are happening in California today.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KNIGHT. If we do not do something today, then when? When do we do 
something? When do we go back to our constituents and say that we are 
actually working on the number one priority in California? A State 
without water is dead.
  I did a tele-town hall 2 weeks ago. I took 18 phone calls in 1 hour. 
There were 17 phone calls that were on water, and on one phone call, he 
had no idea what he was talking about. But 17 phone calls out of 18 
were on water. This is the number one priority.
  If not today, when?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers, and we are 
prepared to close.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have a bill, unfortunately, that would run roughshod over 
California State law with respect to water, with respect to the 
management of wildlife.
  It is a bill that would do harm to the Endangered Species Act and 
other environmental Federal laws. It is a bill that would, indeed, 
ignite a water war

[[Page 11742]]

rather than seriously solve problems on this important issue.
  Don't take it from me. Take it from other serious voices that have 
examined this bill and the Democratic alternative. Take it from the Los 
Angeles Times. Take it from the San Francisco Chronicle. Take it from 
the Department of the Interior and from the Obama administration, which 
has issued a veto threat.

                              {time}  1030

  This is the same bill that has passed on party lines each of the last 
few years, only to be parked in the Senate and go nowhere. It is high 
time that we start talking to each other and working with each other on 
serious, bipartisan solutions for our water challenges instead of 
playing party politics. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to take it from the farmers 
who are desperate for water. These are people who have instituted 
conservation measures that cost them millions of dollars, changing 
their crops from things like lettuce and tomatoes to almond and 
pistachio trees with drip irrigation systems that conserve tremendous 
amounts of water. Still, those trees were allowed to dry up and die.
  Mr. Chairman, to close, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking so many 
on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard on this legislation. We 
spent months working on this. We have crafted it throughout the 
beginning of this Congress, and it has been an important bill. It is 
going to continue to be an important bill. We look forward to seeing 
who has the courage to stand up and actually vote to help the folks of 
California.
  When we see the situation that is going on out there in the valley 
and we see the faces of these people standing in the food lines, the 
people who have worked so hard for so many years to help build farms, 
to help build businesses for their families and we see those 
farmworkers who have come and had the opportunity to put their kids 
through school. Many of them end up in really great places, some of 
them even in Congress, like myself. You see so many different 
opportunities that come from the valley.
  When we have a situation like we have today, where we have literally 
been cut off from water, we have had years in the past decade where we 
have had abundance of water and abundance of snowpack, and we still get 
a small fraction of the contracted amounts. Now, today, we are down to 
zero.
  When people speak of conservation, we have got to find a way to 
conserve water, we have got to find a way to save water, absolutely. We 
have done those things. We have implemented a lot of different 
programs, from drip irrigation, to change of crops, to even trying to 
breed better, more drought-tolerant crops.
  We have done what we can. We do it in our homes; we have done it in 
the way we live our lives, but at the end of the day, you can't 
conserve anything from zero because zero is nothing. There is nothing 
left. What it has done to our economy, what it has done to the people 
in the valley, what it has done to the Nation, what it has done to food 
costs across the Nation, when we look at all the different programs, 
when we are looking for a place to save money, food cost is having a 
huge impact on us all throughout the country.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2898 
because it upends decades of state and federal water law and needlessly 
pits water users against one another. In the midst of California's 
worst drought in its history, this bill mandates that certain interests 
come out ahead of others.
  California is currently in the fourth year of a punishing drought 
that has forced every resident to conserve water, has caused millions 
of acres of agricultural land to be fallowed, and places us at risk of 
major wildfires. But, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to 
permanently upend a century of water law and countless protections for 
threatened and endangered wildlife.
  H.R. 2898 will weaken or override decades of state and federal law, 
including California state water law and the California Constitution; 
the state and federal Endangered Species Acts; the National 
Environmental Policy Act; and the San Joaquin River Settlement Act. 
This list should set off alarm bells for any proponent of states' 
rights or cooperative federalism. For over a century, the federal 
government has deferred to state water law whenever possible, but this 
bill unwinds that history entirely.
  And what do we gain by discarding a century of water law and species 
protections? According to the Department of Interior which manages the 
Delta collaboratively with the state, this bill ``will not provide 
additional meaningful relief to those most affected by the drought.'' 
Local conservationists predict that this bill would cause a complete 
extinction of the Delta smelt and would accelerate the decline of the 
wild salmon and steelhead runs in California which have been an 
important part of the Northern California economy since the mid-19th 
century.
  Instead of taking up partisan legislation that will start a new water 
war in California, Congress should be providing immediate relief to 
drought-impacted communities and should invest in long-term drought 
resilience measures such as conservation, recycling, and desalination, 
which would drastically increase the amount of water available to 
farmers in the Central Valley.
  This irresponsible bill would override science-based management of 
the delicate Delta infrastructure and would gut several of our most 
bedrock environmental laws. For these reasons I strongly oppose this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
H.R. 2898, the so-called ``Western Water and American Food Security Act 
of 2015''.
  I represent a portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the 
largest estuary west of the Mississippi and the source of roughly half 
of California's fresh water. Nearly 25 million Californians rely upon 
the Delta in one form or another for their drinking water supply. 
Additionally, many species depend on the habitats in and around the 
700,000-acre estuary for survival. Species in the Delta include birds 
and waterfowl like sand hill cranes, and fish like Chinook salmon, 
Central Valley steelhead and green sturgeon. Many of these species are 
unique to the Delta and found nowhere else on earth. H.R. 2898 would 
dramatically weaken protections for these ecosystems and for salmon, 
migratory birds, and other fish and wildlife in California's Bay-Delta 
estuary, as well as the thousands of fishing jobs in California and 
Oregon that depend on the health of these species.
  California's ongoing drought--not federal environmental laws--is the 
primary reason for low water supplies across the state. California's 
drought is real, and we need real solutions. However, H.R. 2898 does 
nothing to solve California's severe water shortage or address drought 
across the West. Instead, this bill preempts state laws, reduces 
management flexibility, eliminates protections for salmon and other 
endangered species, and rolls back our nation's fundamental 
environmental laws.
  H.R. 2898 is not a temporary response to drought. It permanently 
amends and overrides the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and 
other federal laws. The bill would also limit National Environmental 
Policy Act review for water projects, reducing transparency and 
eliminating the opportunity for local communities to provide input in 
the planning process. Moreover, several provisions of the bill would 
preempt state law, including section 313, which would override state 
laws, federal laws, a court order, and a binding settlement agreement 
to restore the San Joaquin River.
  This measure would undermine the State of California's groundbreaking 
work to address the drought through the equitable implementation of 
water conservation programs, infrastructure improvements, and 
innovative water recycling initiatives. Water shortages are a result of 
four dry years, not the landmark environmental protections that this 
bill seeks to undermine. This bill will not make it rain. Permanently 
repealing proper environmental review will not solve the drought.
  Ultimately, this bill would not fix our biggest problem--the lack of 
water--and would instead set a dangerous precedent of federal overreach 
for our state, and a repeal of America's longstanding and effective 
environmental protections. As a Californian and a Delta member, I 
strongly oppose H.R. 2898, due to the negative impact that this bill 
would have on my constituents and the environment.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page 11743]]

  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-23. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2898

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Western 
     Water and American Food Security Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--ADJUSTING DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT BASED ON INCREASED REAL-TIME 
                     MONITORING AND UPDATED SCIENCE

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Revise incidental take level calculation for delta smelt to 
              reflect new science.
Sec. 103. Factoring increased real-time monitoring and updated science 
              into Delta smelt management.

  TITLE II--ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Process for ensuring salmonid management is responsive to new 
              science.
Sec. 203. Non-Federal program to protect native anadromous fish in the 
              Stanislaus River.
Sec. 204. Pilot projects to implement calfed invasive species program.

         TITLE III--OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND DROUGHT RELIEF

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Operational flexibility in times of drought.
Sec. 303. Operation of cross-channel gates.
Sec. 304. Flexibility for export/inflow ratio.
Sec. 305. Emergency environmental reviews.
Sec. 306. Increased flexibility for regular project operations.
Sec. 307. Temporary operational flexibility for first few storms of the 
              water year.
Sec. 308. Expediting water transfers.
Sec. 309. Additional emergency consultation.
Sec. 310. Additional storage at New Melones.
Sec. 311. Regarding the operation of Folsom Reservoir.
Sec. 312. Applicants.
Sec. 313. San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 314. Program for water rescheduling.

              TITLE IV--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Sec. 401. Studies.
Sec. 402. Temperance Flat.
Sec. 403. CALFED storage accountability.
Sec. 404. Water storage project construction.

                   TITLE V--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

Sec. 501. Offset for State Water Project.
Sec. 502. Area of origin protections.
Sec. 503. No redirected adverse impacts.
Sec. 504. Allocations for Sacramento Valley contractors.
Sec. 505. Effect on existing obligations.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 601. Authorized service area.
Sec. 602. Oversight board for Restoration Fund.
Sec. 603. Water supply accounting.
Sec. 604. Implementation of water replacement plan.
Sec. 605. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 606. Transfer the New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project to 
              interested providers.
Sec. 607. Basin studies.
Sec. 608. Operations of the Trinity River Division.
Sec. 609. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 610. Amendment to definition.

                 TITLE VII--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Establishment of lead agency and cooperating agencies.
Sec. 704. Bureau responsibilities.
Sec. 705. Cooperating agency responsibilities.
Sec. 706. Funding to process permits.

         TITLE VIII--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Definitions.
Sec. 803. Acceleration of studies.
Sec. 804. Expedited completion of reports.
Sec. 805. Project acceleration.
Sec. 806. Annual report to Congress.

  TITLE IX--ACCELERATED REVENUE, REPAYMENT, AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE 
                              ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Prepayment of certain repayment contracts between the United 
              States and contractors of federally developed water 
              supplies.

                        TITLE X--SAFETY OF DAMS

Sec. 1001. Authorization of additional project benefits.

                   TITLE XI--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION

Sec. 1101. Short title.
Sec. 1102. Definition of water right.
Sec. 1103. Treatment of water rights.
Sec. 1104. Recognition of State authority.
Sec. 1105. Effect of title.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) As established in the Proclamation of a State of 
     Emergency issued by the Governor of the State on January 17, 
     2014, the State is experiencing record dry conditions.
       (2) Extremely dry conditions have persisted in the State 
     since 2012, and the drought conditions are likely to persist 
     into the future.
       (3) The water supplies of the State are at record-low 
     levels, as indicated by the fact that all major Central 
     Valley Project reservoir levels were at 20-35 percent of 
     capacity as of September 25, 2014.
       (4) The lack of precipitation has been a significant 
     contributing factor to the 6,091 fires experienced in the 
     State as of September 15, 2014, and which covered nearly 
     400,000 acres.
       (5) According to a study released by the University of 
     California, Davis in July 2014, the drought has led to the 
     fallowing of 428,000 acres of farmland, loss of $810 million 
     in crop revenue, loss of $203 million in dairy and other 
     livestock value, and increased groundwater pumping costs by 
     $454 million. The statewide economic costs are estimated to 
     be $2.2 billion, with over 17,000 seasonal and part-time 
     agricultural jobs lost.
       (6) CVPIA Level II water deliveries to refuges have also 
     been reduced by 25 percent in the north of Delta region, and 
     by 35 percent in the south of Delta region.
       (7) Only one-sixth of the usual acres of rice fields are 
     being flooded this fall, which leads to a significant decline 
     in habitat for migratory birds and an increased risk of 
     disease at the remaining wetlands due to overcrowding of such 
     birds.
       (8) The drought of 2013 through 2014 constitutes a serious 
     emergency that poses immediate and severe risks to human life 
     and safety and to the environment throughout the State.
       (9) The serious emergency described in paragraph (4) 
     requires--
       (A) immediate and credible action that respects the 
     complexity of the water system of the State and the 
     importance of the water system to the entire State; and
       (B) policies that do not pit stakeholders against one 
     another, which history shows only leads to costly litigation 
     that benefits no one and prevents any real solutions.
       (10) Data on the difference between water demand and 
     reliable water supplies for various regions of California 
     south of the Delta, including the San Joaquin Valley, 
     indicate there is a significant annual gap between reliable 
     water supplies to meet agricultural, municipal and 
     industrial, groundwater, and refuges water needs within the 
     Delta Division, San Luis Unit and Friant Division of the 
     Central Valley Project and the State Water Project south of 
     the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the demands of 
     those areas. This gap varies depending on the methodology of 
     the analysis performed, but can be represented in the 
     following ways:
       (A) For Central Valley Project South-of-Delta water service 
     contractors, if it is assumed that a water supply deficit is 
     the difference in the amount of water available for 
     allocation versus the maximum contract quantity, then the 
     water supply deficits that have developed from 1992 to 2014 
     as a result of legislative and regulatory changes besides 
     natural variations in hydrology during this timeframe range 
     between 720,000 and 1,100,000 acre-feet.
       (B) For Central Valley Project and State Water Project 
     water service contractors south of the Delta and north of the 
     Tehachapi mountain range, if it is assumed that a water 
     supply deficit is the difference between reliable water 
     supplies, including maximum water contract deliveries, safe 
     yield of groundwater, safe yield of local and surface 
     supplies and long-term contracted water transfers, and water 
     demands, including water demands from agriculture, municipal 
     and industrial and refuge contractors, then the water supply 
     deficit ranges between approximately 2,500,000 to 2,700,000 
     acre-feet.
       (11) Data of pumping activities at the Central Valley 
     Project and State Water Project delta pumps identifies that, 
     on average from Water Year 2009 to Water Year 2014, take of 
     Delta smelt is 80 percent less than allowable take levels 
     under the biological opinion issued December 15, 2008.
       (12) Data of field sampling activities of the Interagency 
     Ecological Program located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
     Estuary identifies that, on average from 2005 to 2013, the 
     program ``takes'' 3,500 delta smelt during annual surveys 
     with an authorized ``take'' level of 33,480 delta smelt 
     annually--according to the biological opinion issued December 
     9, 1997.
       (13) In 2015, better information exists than was known in 
     2008 concerning conditions and operations that may or may not 
     lead to high salvage events that jeopardize the fish 
     populations, and what alternative management actions can be 
     taken to avoid jeopardy.

[[Page 11744]]

       (14) Alternative management strategies, removing non-native 
     species, enhancing habitat, monitoring fish movement and 
     location in real-time, and improving water quality in the 
     Delta can contribute significantly to protecting and 
     recovering these endangered fish species, and at potentially 
     lower costs to water supplies.
       (15) Resolution of fundamental policy questions concerning 
     the extent to which application of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 affects the operation of the Central Valley Project 
     and State Water Project is the responsibility of Congress.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Delta.--The term ``Delta'' means the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta and the Suisun Marsh, as defined in sections 
     12220 and 29101 of the California Public Resources Code.
       (2) Export pumping rates.--The term ``export pumping 
     rates'' means the rates of pumping at the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones 
     Pumping Plant and the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant, in the 
     southern Delta.
       (3) Listed fish species.--The term ``listed fish species'' 
     means listed salmonid species and the Delta smelt.
       (4) Listed salmonid species.--The term ``listed salmonid 
     species'' means natural origin steelhead, natural origin 
     genetic spring run Chinook, and genetic winter run Chinook 
     salmon including hatchery steelhead or salmon populations 
     within the evolutionary significant unit (ESU) or distinct 
     population segment (DPS).
       (5) Negative impact on the long-term survival.--The term 
     ``negative impact on the long-term survival'' means to reduce 
     appreciably the likelihood of the survival of a listed 
     species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 
     distribution of that species.
       (6) OMR.--The term ``OMR'' means the Old and Middle River 
     in the Delta.
       (7) OMR flow of -5,000 cubic feet per second.--The term 
     ``OMR flow of -5,000 cubic feet per second'' means Old and 
     Middle River flow of negative 5,000 cubic feet per second as 
     described in--
       (A) the smelt biological opinion; and
       (B) the salmonid biological opinion.
       (8) Salmonid biological opinion.--The term ``salmonid 
     biological opinion'' means the biological opinion issued by 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009.
       (9) Smelt biological opinion.--The term ``smelt biological 
     opinion'' means the biological opinion on the Long-Term 
     Operational Criteria and Plan for coordination of the Central 
     Valley Project and State Water Project issued by the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service on December 15, 2008.
       (10) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     California.

TITLE I--ADJUSTING DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT BASED ON INCREASED REAL-TIME 
                     MONITORING AND UPDATED SCIENCE

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (2) Delta smelt.--The term ``Delta smelt'' means the fish 
     species with the scientific name Hypomesus transpacificus.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.

     SEC. 102. REVISE INCIDENTAL TAKE LEVEL CALCULATION FOR DELTA 
                   SMELT TO REFLECT NEW SCIENCE.

       (a) Review and Modification.--Not later than October 1, 
     2016, and at least every five years thereafter, the Director, 
     in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, 
     shall use the best scientific and commercial data available 
     to complete a review and, modify the method used to calculate 
     the incidental take levels for adult and larval/juvenile 
     Delta smelt in the smelt biological opinion that takes into 
     account all life stages, among other considerations--
       (1) salvage information collected since at least 1993;
       (2) updated or more recently developed statistical models;
       (3) updated scientific and commercial data; and
       (4) the most recent information regarding the environmental 
     factors affecting Delta smelt salvage.
       (b) Modified Incidental Take Level.--Unless the Director 
     determines in writing that one or more of the requirements 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (4) are not appropriate, 
     the modified incidental take level described in subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) be normalized for the abundance of prespawning adult 
     Delta smelt using the Fall Midwater Trawl Index or other 
     index;
       (2) be based on a simulation of the salvage that would have 
     occurred from 1993 through 2012 if OMR flow has been 
     consistent with the smelt biological opinions;
       (3) base the simulation on a correlation between annual 
     salvage rates and historic water clarity and OMR flow during 
     the adult salvage period; and
       (4) set the incidental take level as the 80 percent upper 
     prediction interval derived from simulated salvage rates 
     since at least 1993.

     SEC. 103. FACTORING INCREASED REAL-TIME MONITORING AND 
                   UPDATED SCIENCE INTO DELTA SMELT MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall use the best scientific 
     and commercial data available to implement, continuously 
     evaluate, and refine or amend, as appropriate, the reasonable 
     and prudent alternative described in the smelt biological 
     opinion, and any successor opinions or court order. The 
     Secretary shall make all significant decisions under the 
     smelt biological opinion, or any successor opinions that 
     affect Central Valley Project and State Water Project 
     operations, in writing, and shall document the significant 
     facts upon which such decisions are made, consistent with 
     section 706 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Increased Monitoring To Inform Real-Time Operations.--
     The Secretary shall conduct additional surveys, on an annual 
     basis at the appropriate time of the year based on 
     environmental conditions, in collaboration with other Delta 
     science interests.
       (1) In implementing this section, the Secretary shall--
       (A) use the most accurate survey methods available for the 
     detection of Delta smelt to determine the extent that adult 
     Delta smelt are distributed in relation to certain levels of 
     turbidity, or other environmental factors that may influence 
     salvage rate; and
       (B) use results from appropriate survey methods for the 
     detection of Delta smelt to determine how the Central Valley 
     Project and State Water Project may be operated more 
     efficiently to minimize salvage while maximizing export 
     pumping rates without causing a significant negative impact 
     on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt.
       (2) During the period beginning on December 1, 2015, and 
     ending March 31, 2016, and in each successive December 
     through March period, if suspended sediment loads enter the 
     Delta from the Sacramento River and the suspended sediment 
     loads appear likely to raise turbidity levels in the Old 
     River north of the export pumps from values below 12 
     Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) to values above 12 NTU, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (A) conduct daily monitoring using appropriate survey 
     methods at locations including, but not limited to, the 
     vicinity of Station 902 to determine the extent that adult 
     Delta smelt are moving with turbidity toward the export 
     pumps; and
       (B) use results from the monitoring surveys referenced in 
     paragraph (A) to determine how increased trawling can inform 
     daily real-time Central Valley Project and State Water 
     Project operations to minimize salvage while maximizing 
     export pumping rates without causing a significant negative 
     impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt.
       (c) Periodic Review of Monitoring.--Within 12 months of the 
     date of enactment of this title, and at least once every 5 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate whether the monitoring program under 
     subsection (b), combined with other monitoring programs for 
     the Delta, is providing sufficient data to inform Central 
     Valley Project and State Water Project operations to minimize 
     salvage while maximizing export pumping rates without causing 
     a significant negative impact on the long-term survival of 
     the Delta smelt; and
       (2) determine whether the monitoring efforts should be 
     changed in the short or long term to provide more useful 
     data.
       (d) Delta Smelt Distribution Study.--
       (1) In general.--No later than January 1, 2016, and at 
     least every five years thereafter, the Secretary, in 
     collaboration with the California Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife, the California Department of Water Resources, 
     public water agencies, and other interested entities, shall 
     implement new targeted sampling and monitoring specifically 
     designed to understand Delta smelt abundance, distribution, 
     and the types of habitat occupied by Delta smelt during all 
     life stages.
       (2) Sampling.--The Delta smelt distribution study shall, at 
     a minimum--
       (A) include recording water quality and tidal data;
       (B) be designed to understand Delta smelt abundance, 
     distribution, habitat use, and movement throughout the Delta, 
     Suisun Marsh, and other areas occupied by the Delta smelt 
     during all seasons;
       (C) consider areas not routinely sampled by existing 
     monitoring programs, including wetland channels, near-shore 
     water, depths below 35 feet, and shallow water; and
       (D) use survey methods, including sampling gear, best 
     suited to collect the most accurate data for the type of 
     sampling or monitoring.
       (e) Scientifically Supported Implementation of OMR Flow 
     Requirements.--In implementing the provisions of the smelt 
     biological opinion, or any successor biological opinion or 
     court order, pertaining to management of reverse flow in the 
     Old and Middle Rivers, the Secretary shall--
       (1) consider the relevant provisions of the biological 
     opinion or any successor biological opinion;
       (2) to maximize Central Valley project and State Water 
     Project water supplies, manage export pumping rates to 
     achieve a reverse OMR flow rate of -5,000 cubic feet per 
     second unless information developed by the Secretary under 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) leads the Secretary to reasonably 
     conclude that a less negative OMR flow rate is necessary to 
     avoid a negative impact on the long-term survival of the 
     Delta smelt. If information available to the Secretary 
     indicates that a reverse OMR flow rate more negative than 
     -5,000 cubic feet per second can be established without an 
     imminent negative impact on

[[Page 11745]]

     the long-term survival of the Delta smelt, the Secretary 
     shall manage export pumping rates to achieve that more 
     negative OMR flow rate;
       (3) document in writing any significant facts about real-
     time conditions relevant to the determinations of OMR reverse 
     flow rates, including--
       (A) whether targeted real-time fish monitoring in the Old 
     River pursuant to this section, including monitoring in the 
     vicinity of Station 902, indicates that a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt 
     is imminent; and
       (B) whether near-term forecasts with available salvage 
     models show under prevailing conditions that OMR flow of 
     -5,000 cubic feet per second or higher will cause a 
     significant negative impact on the long-term survival of the 
     Delta smelt;
       (4) show in writing that any determination to manage OMR 
     reverse flow at rates less negative than -5,000 cubic feet 
     per second is necessary to avoid a significant negative 
     impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt, 
     including an explanation of the data examined and the 
     connection between those data and the choice made, after 
     considering--
       (A) the distribution of Delta smelt throughout the Delta;
       (B) the potential effects of documented, quantified 
     entrainment on subsequent Delta smelt abundance;
       (C) the water temperature;
       (D) other significant factors relevant to the 
     determination; and
       (E) whether any alternative measures could have a 
     substantially lesser water supply impact; and
       (5) for any subsequent biological opinion, make the showing 
     required in paragraph (4) for any determination to manage OMR 
     reverse flow at rates less negative than the most negative 
     limit in the biological opinion if the most negative limit in 
     the biological opinion is more negative than -5,000 cubic 
     feet per second.
       (f) Memorandum of Understanding.--No later than December 1, 
     2015, the Commissioner and the Director will execute a 
     Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure that the smelt 
     biological opinion is implemented in a manner that maximizes 
     water supply while complying with applicable laws and 
     regulations. If that MOU alters any procedures set out in the 
     biological opinion, there will be no need to reinitiate 
     consultation if those changes will not have a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival on listed species 
     and the implementation of the MOU would not be a major change 
     to implementation of the biological opinion. Any change to 
     procedures that does not create a significant negative impact 
     on the long-term survival to listed species will not alter 
     application of the take permitted by the incidental take 
     statement in the biological opinion under section 7(o)(2) of 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
       (g) Calculation of Reverse Flow in OMR.--Within 90 days of 
     the enactment of this title, the Secretary is directed, in 
     consultation with the California Department of Water 
     Resources to revise the method used to calculate reverse flow 
     in Old and Middle Rivers for implementation of the reasonable 
     and prudent alternatives in the smelt biological opinion and 
     the salmonid biological opinion, and any succeeding 
     biological opinions, for the purpose of increasing Central 
     Valley Project and State Water Project water supplies. The 
     method of calculating reverse flow in Old and Middle Rivers 
     shall be reevaluated not less than every five years 
     thereafter to achieve maximum export pumping rates within 
     limits established by the smelt biological opinion, the 
     salmonid biological opinion, and any succeeding biological 
     opinions.

  TITLE II--ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Assistant administrator.--The term ``Assistant 
     Administrator'' means the Assistant Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 
     Fisheries.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (3) Other affected interests.--The term ``other affected 
     interests'' means the State of California, Indian tribes, 
     subdivisions of the State of California, public water 
     agencies and those who benefit directly and indirectly from 
     the operations of the Central Valley Project and the State 
     Water Project.
       (4) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
       (5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

     SEC. 202. PROCESS FOR ENSURING SALMONID MANAGEMENT IS 
                   RESPONSIVE TO NEW SCIENCE.

       (a) General Directive.--The reasonable and prudent 
     alternative described in the salmonid biological opinion 
     allows for and anticipates adjustments in Central Valley 
     Project and State Water Project operation parameters to 
     reflect the best scientific and commercial data currently 
     available, and authorizes efforts to test and evaluate 
     improvements in operations that will meet applicable 
     regulatory requirements and maximize Central Valley Project 
     and State Water Project water supplies and reliability. 
     Implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative 
     described in the salmonid biological opinion shall be 
     adjusted accordingly as new scientific and commercial data 
     are developed. The Commissioner and the Assistant 
     Administrator shall fully utilize these authorities as 
     described below.
       (b) Annual Reviews of Certain Central Valley Project and 
     State Water Project Operations.--No later than December 31, 
     2016, and at least annually thereafter:
       (1) The Commissioner, with the assistance of the Assistant 
     Administrator, shall examine and identify adjustments to the 
     initiation of Action IV.2.3 as set forth in the Biological 
     Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of 
     the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, 
     Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, issued by the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009, pertaining 
     to negative OMR flows, subject to paragraph (5).
       (2) The Commissioner, with the assistance of the Assistant 
     Administrator, shall examine and identify adjustments in the 
     timing, triggers or other operational details relating to the 
     implementation of pumping restrictions in Action IV.2.1 
     pertaining to the inflow to export ratio, subject to 
     paragraph (5).
       (3) Pursuant to the consultation and assessments carried 
     out under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the 
     Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator shall jointly 
     make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and to 
     the Secretary on adjustments to project operations that, in 
     the exercise of the adaptive management provisions of the 
     salmonid biological opinion, will reduce water supply impacts 
     of the salmonid biological opinion on the Central Valley 
     Project and the California State Water Project and are 
     consistent with the requirements of applicable law and as 
     further described in subsection (c).
       (4) The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     direct the Commissioner and Assistant Administrator to 
     implement recommended adjustments to Central Valley Project 
     and State Water Project operations for which the conditions 
     under subsection (c) are met.
       (5) The Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall 
     review and identify adjustments to Central Valley Project and 
     State Water Project operations with water supply restrictions 
     in any successor biological opinion to the salmonid 
     biological opinion, applying the provisions of this section 
     to those water supply restrictions where there are references 
     to Actions IV.2.1 and IV.2.3.
       (c) Implementation of Operational Adjustments.--After 
     reviewing the recommendations under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary shall direct the 
     Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator to implement 
     those operational adjustments, or any combination, for which, 
     in aggregate--
       (1) the net effect on listed species is equivalent to those 
     of the underlying project operational parameters in the 
     salmonid biological opinion, taking into account both--
       (A) efforts to minimize the adverse effects of the 
     adjustment to project operations; and
       (B) whatever additional actions or measures may be 
     implemented in conjunction with the adjustments to operations 
     to offset the adverse effects to listed species, consistent 
     with (d), that are in excess of the adverse effects of the 
     underlying operational parameters, if any; and
       (2) the effects of the adjustment can be reasonably 
     expected to fall within the incidental take authorizations.
       (d) Evaluation of Offsetting Measures.--When examining and 
     identifying opportunities to offset the potential adverse 
     effect of adjustments to operations under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B), the Commissioner and the Assistant Administrator 
     shall take into account the potential species survival 
     improvements that are likely to result from other measures 
     which, if implemented in conjunction with such adjustments, 
     would offset adverse effects, if any, of the adjustments. 
     When evaluating offsetting measures, the Commissioner and the 
     Assistant Administrator shall consider the type, timing and 
     nature of the adverse effects, if any, to specific species 
     and ensure that the measures likely provide equivalent 
     overall benefits to the listed species in the aggregate, as 
     long as the change will not cause a significant negative 
     impact on the long-term survival of a listed salmonid 
     species.
       (e) Framework for Examining Opportunities To Minimize or 
     Offset the Potential Adverse Effect of Adjustments to 
     Operations.--Not later than December 31, 2015, and every five 
     years thereafter, the Assistant Administrator shall, in 
     collaboration with the Director of the California Department 
     of Fish and Wildlife, based on the best scientific and 
     commercial data available and for each listed salmonid 
     species, issue estimates of the increase in through-Delta 
     survival the Secretary expects to be achieved--
       (1) through restrictions on export pumping rates as 
     specified by Action IV.2.3 as compared to limiting OMR flow 
     to a fixed rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second within the 
     time period Action IV.2.3 is applicable, based on a given 
     rate of San Joaquin River inflow to the Delta and holding 
     other relevant factors constant;
       (2) through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions 
     on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1 as 
     compared to the restrictions in the April/May period imposed 
     by the State Water Resources Control Board decision D-1641, 
     based on a given rate of San Joaquin River inflow to the 
     Delta and holding other relevant factors constant;
       (3) through physical habitat restoration improvements;
       (4) through predation control programs;
       (5) through the installation of temporary barriers, the 
     management of Cross Channel Gates operations, and other 
     projects affecting flow in the Delta;

[[Page 11746]]

       (6) through salvaging fish that have been entrained near 
     the entrance to Clifton Court Forebay;
       (7) through any other management measures that may provide 
     equivalent or better protections for listed species while 
     maximizing export pumping rates without causing a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed 
     salmonid species; and
       (8) through development and implementation of conservation 
     hatchery programs for salmon and steelhead to aid in the 
     recovery of listed salmon and steelhead species.
       (f) Survival Estimates.--
       (1) To the maximum extent practicable, the Assistant 
     Administrator shall make quantitative estimates of survival 
     such as a range of percentage increases in through-Delta 
     survival that could result from the management measures, and 
     if the scientific information is lacking for quantitative 
     estimates, shall do so on qualitative terms based upon the 
     best available science.
       (2) If the Assistant Administrator provides qualitative 
     survival estimates for a species resulting from one or more 
     management measures, the Secretary shall, to the maximum 
     extent feasible, rank the management measures described in 
     subsection (e) in terms of their most likely expected 
     contribution to increased through-Delta survival relative to 
     the other measures.
       (3) If at the time the Assistant Administrator conducts the 
     reviews under subsection (b), the Secretary has not issued an 
     estimate of increased through-Delta survival from different 
     management measures pursuant to subsection (e), the Secretary 
     shall compare the protections to the species from different 
     management measures based on the best scientific and 
     commercial data available at the time.
       (g) Comparison of Adverse Consequences for Alternative 
     Management Measures of Equivalent Protection for a Species.--
       (1) For the purposes of this subsection and subsection 
     (c)--
       (A) the alternative management measure or combination of 
     alternative management measures identified in paragraph (2) 
     shall be known as the ``equivalent alternative measure'';
       (B) the existing measure or measures identified in 
     subparagraphs (2) (A), (B), (C), or (D) shall be known as the 
     ``equivalent existing measure''; and
       (C) an ``equivalent increase in through-Delta survival 
     rates for listed salmonid species'' shall mean an increase in 
     through-Delta survival rates that is equivalent when 
     considering the change in through-Delta survival rates for 
     the listed salmonid species in the aggregate, and not the 
     same change for each individual species, as long as the 
     change in survival rates will not cause a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed 
     salmonid species.
       (2) As part of the reviews of project operations pursuant 
     to subsection (b), the Assistant Administrator shall 
     determine whether any alternative management measures or 
     combination of alternative management measures listed in 
     subsection (e) (3) through (8) would provide an increase in 
     through-Delta survival rates for listed salmonid species that 
     is equivalent to the increase in through-Delta survival rates 
     for listed salmonid species from the following:
       (A) Through restrictions on export pumping rates as 
     specified by Action IV.2.3, as compared to limiting OMR flow 
     to a fixed rate of -5,000 cubic feet per second within the 
     time period Action IV.2.3 is applicable.
       (B) Through restrictions on export pumping rates as 
     specified by Action IV.2.3, as compared to a modification of 
     Action IV.2.3 that would provide additional water supplies, 
     other than that described in subparagraph (A).
       (C) Through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions 
     on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1, as 
     compared to the restrictions in the April/May period imposed 
     by the State Water Resources Control Board decision D-1641.
       (D) Through San Joaquin River inflow to export restrictions 
     on export pumping rates specified within Action IV.2.1, as 
     compared to a modification of Action IV.2.1 that would reduce 
     water supply impacts of the salmonid biological opinion on 
     the Central Valley Project and the California State Water 
     Project, other than that described in subparagraph (C).
       (3) If the Assistant Administrator identifies an equivalent 
     alternative measure pursuant to paragraph (2), the Assistant 
     Administrator shall determine whether--
       (A) it is technically feasible and within Federal 
     jurisdiction to implement the equivalent alternative measure;
       (B) the State of California, or subdivision thereof, or 
     local agency with jurisdiction has certified in writing 
     within 10 calendar days to the Assistant Administrator that 
     it has the authority and capability to implement the 
     pertinent equivalent alternative measure; or
       (C) the adverse consequences of doing so are less than the 
     adverse consequences of the equivalent existing measure, 
     including a concise evaluation of the adverse consequences to 
     other affected interests.
       (4) If the Assistant Administrator makes the determinations 
     in subparagraph (3)(A) or (3)(B), the Commissioner shall 
     adjust project operations to implement the equivalent 
     alternative measure in place of the equivalent existing 
     measure in order to increase export rates of pumping to the 
     greatest extent possible while maintaining a net combined 
     effect of equivalent through-Delta survival rates for the 
     listed salmonid species.
       (h) Tracking Adverse Effects Beyond the Range of Effects 
     Accounted for in the Salmonid Biological Opinion and 
     Coordinated Operation With the Delta Smelt Biological 
     Opinion.--
       (1) Among the adjustments to the project operations 
     considered through the adaptive management process under this 
     section, the Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner 
     shall--
       (A) evaluate the effects on listed salmonid species and 
     water supply of the potential adjustment to operational 
     criteria described in subparagraph (B); and
       (B) consider requiring that before some or all of the 
     provisions of Actions IV.2.1. or IV.2.3 are imposed in any 
     specific instance, the Assistant Administrator show that the 
     implementation of these provisions in that specific instance 
     is necessary to avoid a significant negative impact on the 
     long-term survival of a listed salmonid species.
       (2) The Assistant Administrator, the Director, and the 
     Commissioner, in coordination with State officials as 
     appropriate, shall establish operational criteria to 
     coordinate management of OMR flows under the smelt and 
     salmonid biological opinions, in order to take advantage of 
     opportunities to provide additional water supplies from the 
     coordinated implementation of the biological opinions.
       (3) The Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall 
     document the effects of any adaptive management decisions 
     related to the coordinated operation of the smelt and 
     salmonid biological opinions that prioritizes the maintenance 
     of one species at the expense of the other.
       (i) Real-Time Monitoring and Management.--Notwithstanding 
     the calendar based triggers described in the salmonid 
     biological opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA), 
     the Assistant Administrator and the Commissioner shall not 
     limit OMR reverse flow to -5,000 cubic feet per second unless 
     current monitoring data indicate that this OMR flow 
     limitation is reasonably required to avoid a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival of a listed 
     salmonid species.
       (j) Evaluation and Implementation of Management Measures.--
     If the quantitative estimates of through-Delta survival 
     established by the Secretary for the adjustments in 
     subsection (b)(2) exceed the through-Delta survival 
     established for the RPAs, the Secretary shall evaluate and 
     implement the management measures in subsection (b)(2) as a 
     prerequisite to implementing the RPAs contained in the 
     Salmonid Biological Opinion.
       (k) Accordance With Other Law.--Consistent with section 706 
     of title 5, United States Code, decisions of the Assistant 
     Administrator and the Commissioner described in subsections 
     (b) through (j) shall be made in writing, on the basis of 
     best scientific and commercial data currently available, and 
     shall include an explanation of the data examined at the 
     connection between those data and the decisions made.

     SEC. 203. NON-FEDERAL PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS 
                   FISH IN THE STANISLAUS RIVER.

       (a) Establishment of Nonnative Predator Fish Removal 
     Program.--The Secretary and the districts, in consultation 
     with the Director, shall jointly develop and conduct a 
     nonnative predator fish removal program to remove nonnative 
     striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass, 
     and other nonnative predator fish species from the Stanislaus 
     River. The program shall--
       (1) be scientifically based;
       (2) include methods to quantify the number and size of 
     predator fish removed each year, the impact of such removal 
     on the overall abundance of predator fish, and the impact of 
     such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous fish 
     found in the Stanislaus River by, among other things, 
     evaluating the number of juvenile anadromous fish that 
     migrate past the rotary screw trap located at Caswell;
       (3) among other methods, use wire fyke trapping, portable 
     resistance board weirs, and boat electrofishing; and
       (4) be implemented as quickly as possible following the 
     issuance of all necessary scientific research.
       (b) Management.--The management of the program shall be the 
     joint responsibility of the Secretary and the districts. Such 
     parties shall work collaboratively to ensure the performance 
     of the program, and shall discuss and agree upon, among other 
     things, changes in the structure, management, personnel, 
     techniques, strategy, data collection, reporting, and conduct 
     of the program.
       (c) Conduct.--
       (1) In general.--By agreement between the Secretary and the 
     districts, the program may be conducted by their own 
     personnel, qualified private contractors hired by the 
     districts, personnel of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service, or a combination 
     thereof.
       (2) Participation by the national marine fisheries 
     service.--If the districts elect to conduct the program using 
     their own personnel or qualified private contractors hired by 
     them in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     assign an employee of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service, to be present for all 
     activities performed in the field. Such presence shall ensure 
     compliance with the agreed-upon elements specified in 
     subsection (b). The districts shall pay the cost of such 
     participation in accordance with subsection (d).
       (3) Timing of election.--The districts shall notify the 
     Secretary of their election on or before October 15 of each 
     calendar year of the program. Such an election shall apply to 
     the work performed in the subsequent calendar year.

[[Page 11747]]

       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--The districts shall be responsible for 100 
     percent of the cost of the program.
       (2) Contributed funds.--The Secretary may accept and use 
     contributions of funds from the districts to carry out 
     activities under the program.
       (3) Estimation of cost.--On or before December 1 of each 
     year of the program, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     districts an estimate of the cost to be incurred by the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service for the program in the 
     following calendar year, if any, including the cost of any 
     data collection and posting under subsection (e). If an 
     amount equal to the estimate is not provided through 
     contributions pursuant to paragraph (2) before December 31 of 
     that year--
       (A) the Secretary shall have no obligation to conduct the 
     program activities otherwise scheduled for such following 
     calendar year until such amount is contributed by the 
     districts; and
       (B) the districts may not conduct any aspect of the program 
     until such amount is contributed by the districts.
       (4) Accounting.--On or before September 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the districts an accounting of the 
     costs incurred by the Secretary for the program in the 
     preceding calendar year. If the amount contributed by the 
     districts pursuant to paragraph (2) for that year was greater 
     than the costs incurred by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) apply the excess contributions to costs of activities 
     to be performed by the Secretary under the program, if any, 
     in the next calendar year; or
       (B) if no such activities are to be performed, repay the 
     excess contribution to the districts.
       (e) Posting and Evaluation.--On or before the 15th day of 
     each month, the Secretary shall post on the Internet website 
     of the National Marine Fisheries Service a tabular summary of 
     the raw data collected under the program in the preceding 
     month.
       (f) Implementation.--The program is hereby found to be 
     consistent with the requirements of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575). No provision, 
     plan or definition established or required by the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) shall be 
     used to prohibit the imposition of the program, or to prevent 
     the accomplishment of its goals.
       (g) Treatment of Striped Bass.--For purposes of the 
     application of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) with respect to the 
     program, striped bass shall not be treated as anadromous 
     fish.
       (h) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``districts'' means the Oakdale Irrigation District and the 
     South San Joaquin Irrigation District, California.

     SEC. 204. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT CALFED INVASIVE SPECIES 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2017, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the California 
     Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other relevant agencies 
     and interested parties, shall begin pilot projects to 
     implement the invasive species control program authorized 
     pursuant to section 103(d)(6)(A)(iv) of Public Law 108-361 
     (118 Stat. 1690).
       (b) Requirements.--The pilot projects shall--
       (1) seek to reduce invasive aquatic vegetation, predators, 
     and other competitors which contribute to the decline of 
     native listed pelagic and anadromous species that occupy the 
     Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and 
     the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta; and
       (2) remove, reduce, or control the effects of species, 
     including Asiatic clams, silversides, gobies, Brazilian water 
     weed, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, striped bass, 
     crappie, bluegill, white and channel catfish, and brown 
     bullheads.
       (c) Sunset.--The authorities provided under this subsection 
     shall expire seven years after the Secretaries commence 
     implementation of the pilot projects pursuant to subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Emergency Environmental Reviews.--To expedite the 
     environmentally beneficial programs for the conservation of 
     threatened and endangered species, the Secretaries shall 
     consult with the Council on Environmental Quality in 
     accordance with section 1506.11 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations), to develop 
     alternative arrangements to comply with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     the projects pursuant to subsection (a).

         TITLE III--OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND DROUGHT RELIEF

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Central valley project.--The term ``Central Valley 
     Project'' has the meaning given the term in section 3403 of 
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-
     575; 106 Stat. 4707).
       (2) Reclamation project.--The term ``Reclamation Project'' 
     means a project constructed pursuant to the authorities of 
     the reclamation laws and whose facilities are wholly or 
     partially located in the State.
       (3) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (B) the Secretary of Commerce; and
       (C) the Secretary of the Interior.
       (4) State water project.--The term ``State Water Project'' 
     means the water project described by California Water Code 
     section 11550 et seq. and operated by the California 
     Department of Water Resources.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     California.

     SEC. 302. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY IN TIMES OF DROUGHT.

       (a) Water Supplies.--For the period of time such that in 
     any year that the Sacramento Valley Index is 6.5 or lower, or 
     at the request of the State of California, and until two 
     succeeding years following either of those events have been 
     completed where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or 
     greater, the Secretaries shall provide the maximum quantity 
     of water supplies practicable to all individuals or district 
     who receive Central Valley Project water under water service 
     or repayments contracts, water rights settlement contracts, 
     exchange contracts, or refuge contracts or agreements entered 
     into prior to or after the date of enactment of this title; 
     State Water Project contractors, and any other tribe, 
     locality, water agency, or municipality in the State, by 
     approving, consistent with applicable laws (including 
     regulations), projects and operations to provide additional 
     water supplies as quickly as practicable based on available 
     information to address the emergency conditions.
       (b) Administration.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretaries shall, consistent with applicable laws (including 
     regulations)--
       (1) issue all necessary permit decisions under the 
     authority of the Secretaries not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the Secretaries receive a completed application 
     from the State to place and use temporary barriers or 
     operable gates in Delta channels to improve water quantity 
     and quality for the State Water Project and the Central 
     Valley Project south of Delta water contractors and other 
     water users, on the condition that the barriers or operable 
     gates--
       (A) do not result in a significant negative impact on the 
     long-term survival of listed species within the Delta and 
     provide benefits or have a neutral impact on in-Delta water 
     user water quality; and
       (B) are designed so that formal consultations under section 
     7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) are 
     not necessary;
       (2) require the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and the Commissioner of Reclamation--
       (A) to complete, not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the Director or the Commissioner receives a complete 
     written request for water transfer, all requirements under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.) necessary to make final permit decisions on the 
     request; and
       (B) to approve any water transfer request described in 
     subparagraph (A) to maximize the quantity of water supplies 
     available for nonhabitat uses, on the condition that actions 
     associated with the water transfer comply with applicable 
     Federal laws (including regulations);
       (3) adopt a 1:1 inflow to export ratio, as measured as a 3-
     day running average at Vernalis during the period beginning 
     on April 1, and ending on May 31, absent a determination in 
     writing that a more restrictive inflow to export ratio is 
     required to avoid a significant negative impact on the long-
     term survival of a listed salmonid species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 
     provided that the 1:1 inflow to export ratio shall apply for 
     the increment of increased flow of the San Joaquin River 
     resulting from the voluntary sale, transfers, or exchanges of 
     water from agencies with rights to divert water from the San 
     Joaquin River or its tributaries and provided that the 
     movement of the acquired, transferred, or exchanged water 
     through the Delta consistent with the Central Valley 
     Project's and the State Water Project's permitted water 
     rights and provided that movement of the Central Valley 
     Project water is consistent with the requirements of section 
     3405(a)(1)(H) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act; 
     and
       (4) allow and facilitate, consistent with existing 
     priorities, water transfers through the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones 
     Pumping Plant or the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant from April 
     1 to November 30 provided water transfers comply with State 
     law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
       (c) Accelerated Project Decision and Elevation.--
       (1) In general.--On request by the Governor of the State, 
     the Secretaries shall use the expedited procedures under this 
     subsection to make final decisions relating to a Federal 
     project or operation, or to local or State projects or 
     operations that require decisions by the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the Secretary of Commerce to provide additional 
     water supplies if the project's or operation's purpose is to 
     provide relief for emergency drought conditions pursuant to 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       (2) Request for resolution.--
       (A) In general.--On request by the Governor of the State, 
     the Secretaries referenced in paragraph (1), or the head of 
     another Federal agency responsible for carrying out a review 
     of a project, as applicable, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall convene a final project decision meeting with the heads 
     of all relevant Federal agencies to decide whether to approve 
     a project to provide relief for emergency drought conditions.
       (B) Meeting.--The Secretary of the Interior shall convene a 
     meeting requested under subparagraph (A) not later than 7 
     days after the date on which the meeting request is received.
       (3) Notification.--On receipt of a request for a meeting 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     notify the heads of all relevant Federal agencies of the 
     request, including

[[Page 11748]]

     information on the project to be reviewed and the date of the 
     meeting.
       (4) Decision.--Not later than 10 days after the date on 
     which a meeting is requested under paragraph (2), the head of 
     the relevant Federal agency shall issue a final decision on 
     the project, subject to subsection (e)(2).
       (5) Meeting convened by secretary.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may convene a final project decision meeting under 
     this subsection at any time, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, regardless of whether a meeting is requested under 
     paragraph (2).
       (d) Application.--To the extent that a Federal agency, 
     other than the agencies headed by the Secretaries, has a role 
     in approving projects described in subsections (a) and (b), 
     this section shall apply to those Federal agencies.
       (e) Limitation.--Nothing in this section authorizes the 
     Secretaries to approve projects--
       (1) that would otherwise require congressional 
     authorization; or
       (2) without following procedures required by applicable 
     law.
       (f) Drought Plan.--For the period of time such that in any 
     year that the Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or at 
     the request of the State of California, and until two 
     succeeding years following either of those events have been 
     completed where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or 
     greater, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, in 
     consultation with appropriate State officials, shall develop 
     a drought operations plan that is consistent with the 
     provisions of this Act including the provisions that are 
     intended to provide additional water supplies that could be 
     of assistance during the current drought.

     SEC. 303. OPERATION OF CROSS-CHANNEL GATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall jointly--
       (1) authorize and implement activities to ensure that the 
     Delta Cross Channel Gates remain open to the maximum extent 
     practicable using findings from the United States Geological 
     Survey on diurnal behavior of juvenile salmonids, timed to 
     maximize the peak flood tide period and provide water supply 
     and water quality benefits for the duration of the drought 
     emergency declaration of the State, and for the period of 
     time such that in any year that the Sacramento Valley index 
     is 6.5 or lower, or at the request of the State of 
     California, and until two succeeding years following either 
     of those events have been completed where the final 
     Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, consistent with 
     operational criteria and monitoring criteria set forth into 
     the Order Approving a Temporary Urgency Change in License and 
     Permit Terms in Response to Drought Conditions of the 
     California State Water Resources Control Board, effective 
     January 31, 2014 (or a successor order) and other 
     authorizations associated with it;
       (2) with respect to the operation of the Delta Cross 
     Channel Gates described in paragraph (1), collect data on the 
     impact of that operation on--
       (A) species listed as threatened or endangered under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
       (B) water quality; and
       (C) water supply;
       (3) collaborate with the California Department of Water 
     Resources to install a deflection barrier at Georgiana Slough 
     in coordination with Delta Cross Channel Gate diurnal 
     operations to protect migrating salmonids, consistent with 
     knowledge gained from activities carried out during 2014 and 
     2015;
       (4) evaluate the combined salmonid survival in light of 
     activities carried out pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     in deciding how to operate the Delta Cross Channel gates to 
     enhance salmonid survival and water supply benefits; and
       (5) not later than May 15, 2016, submit to the appropriate 
     committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 
     notice and explanation on the extent to which the gates are 
     able to remain open.
       (b) Recommendations.--After assessing the information 
     collected under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall recommend revisions to the operation of the Delta 
     Cross-Channel Gates, to the Central Valley Project, and to 
     the State Water Project, including, if appropriate, any 
     reasonable and prudent alternative contained in the 
     biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service on June 4, 2009, that are likely to produce water 
     supply benefits without causing a significant negative impact 
     on the long-term survival of the listed fish species within 
     the Delta or on water quality.

     SEC. 304. FLEXIBILITY FOR EXPORT/INFLOW RATIO.

       For the period of time such that in any year that the 
     Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or at the request of 
     the State of California, and until two succeeding years 
     following either of those events have been completed where 
     the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation shall continue to 
     vary the averaging period of the Delta Export/Inflow ratio 
     pursuant to the California State Water Resources Control 
     Board decision D1641--
       (1) to operate to a 35-percent Export/Inflow ratio with a 
     3-day averaging period on the rising limb of a Delta inflow 
     hydrograph; and
       (2) to operate to a 14-day averaging period on the falling 
     limb of the Delta inflow hydrograph.

     SEC. 305. EMERGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS.

       (a) NEPA Compliance.--To minimize the time spent carrying 
     out environmental reviews and to deliver water quickly that 
     is needed to address emergency drought conditions in the 
     State during the duration of an emergency drought 
     declaration, the Secretaries shall, in carrying out this Act, 
     consult with the Council on Environmental Quality in 
     accordance with section 1506.11 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (including successor regulations), to develop 
     alternative arrangements to comply with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     during the emergency.
       (b) Determinations.--For the purposes of this section, a 
     Secretary may deem a project to be in compliance with all 
     necessary environmental regulations and reviews if the 
     Secretary determines that the immediate implementation of the 
     project is necessary to address--
       (1) human health and safety; or
       (2) a specific and imminent loss of agriculture production 
     upon which an identifiable region depends for 25 percent or 
     more of its tax revenue used to support public services 
     including schools, fire or police services, city or county 
     health facilities, unemployment services or other associated 
     social services.

     SEC. 306. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR REGULAR PROJECT 
                   OPERATIONS.

       The Secretaries shall, consistent with applicable laws 
     (including regulations)--
       (1) in coordination with the California Department of Water 
     Resources and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
     implement offsite upstream projects in the Delta and upstream 
     of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin basins that offset 
     the effects on species listed as threatened or endangered 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) due to activities carried out pursuant this Act, as 
     determined by the Secretaries;
       (2) manage reverse flow in the Old and Middle Rivers at 
     -6,100 cubic feet per second if real-time monitoring 
     indicates that flows of -6,100 cubic feet per second or more 
     negative can be established for specific periods without 
     causing a significant negative impact on the long-term 
     survival of the Delta smelt, or if real-time monitoring does 
     not support flows of -6,100 cubic feet per second than manage 
     OMR flows at -5,000 cubic feet per second subject to section 
     103(e) (3) and (4); and
       (3) use all available scientific tools to identify any 
     changes to real-time operations of the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     State, and local water projects that could result in the 
     availability of additional water supplies.

     SEC. 307. TEMPORARY OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FIRST FEW 
                   STORMS OF THE WATER YEAR.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with avoiding a significant 
     negative impact on the long-term survival in the short term 
     upon listed fish species beyond the range of those authorized 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and other 
     environmental protections under subsection (e), the 
     Secretaries shall authorize the Central Valley Project and 
     the State Water Project, combined, to operate at levels that 
     result in negative OMR flows at -7,500 cubic feet per second 
     (based on United States Geological Survey gauges on Old and 
     Middle Rivers) daily average for 56 cumulative days after 
     October 1 as described in subsection (c).
       (b) Days of Temporary Operational Flexibility.--The 
     temporary operational flexibility described in subsection (a) 
     shall be authorized on days that the California Department of 
     Water Resources determines the daily average river flow of 
     the Sacramento River is at, or above, 17,000 cubic feet per 
     second as measured at the Sacramento River at Freeport gauge 
     maintained by the United States Geologic Survey.
       (c) Compliance With Endangered Species Act 
     Authorizations.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretaries may continue to impose any requirements under the 
     smelt and salmonid biological opinions during any period of 
     temporary operational flexibility as they determine are 
     reasonably necessary to avoid an additional significant 
     negative impacts on the long-term survival of a listed fish 
     species beyond the range of those authorized under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973, provided that the 
     requirements imposed do not reduce water supplies available 
     for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.
       (d) Other Environmental Protections.--
       (1) State law.--The Secretaries' actions under this section 
     shall be consistent with applicable regulatory requirements 
     under State law.
       (2) First sediment flush.--During the first flush of 
     sediment out of the Delta in each water year, and provided 
     that such determination is based upon objective evidence, OMR 
     flow may be managed at rates less negative than -5,000 cubic 
     feet per second for a minimum duration to avoid movement of 
     adult Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) to areas in the 
     southern Delta that would be likely to increase entrainment 
     at Central Valley Project and State Water Project pumping 
     plants.
       (3) Applicability of opinion.--This section shall not 
     affect the application of the salmonid biological opinion 
     from April 1 to May 31, unless the Secretary of Commerce 
     finds that some or all of such applicable requirements may be 
     adjusted during this time period to provide emergency water 
     supply relief without resulting in additional adverse effects 
     beyond those authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973. In addition to any other actions to benefit water 
     supply, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall consider allowing through-Delta water 
     transfers to occur during this period if they can be 
     accomplished consistent with section 3405(a)(1)(H) of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Water transfers 
     solely or exclusively through the State Water

[[Page 11749]]

     Project are not required to be consistent with section 
     3405(a)(1)(H) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
       (4) Monitoring.--During operations under this section, the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, in coordination with the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
     California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall undertake a 
     monitoring program and other data gathering to ensure 
     incidental take levels are not exceeded, and to identify 
     potential negative impacts and actions, if any, necessary to 
     mitigate impacts of the temporary operational flexibility to 
     species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (e) Technical Adjustments to Target Period.--If, before 
     temporary operational flexibility has been implemented on 56 
     cumulative days, the Secretaries operate the Central Valley 
     Project and the State Water Project combined at levels that 
     result in OMR flows less negative than -7,500 cubic feet per 
     second during days of temporary operational flexibility as 
     defined in subsection (c), the duration of such operation 
     shall not be counted toward the 56 cumulative days specified 
     in subsection (a).
       (f) Emergency Consultation; Effect on Running Averages.--
       (1) If necessary to implement the provisions of this 
     section, the Commissioner is authorized to take any action 
     necessary to implement this section for up to 56 cumulative 
     days. If during the 56 cumulative days the Commissioner 
     determines that actions necessary to implement this section 
     will exceed 56 days, the Commissioner shall use the emergency 
     consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 and its implementing regulation at section 402.05 of 
     title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, to temporarily adjust 
     the operating criteria under the biological opinions--
       (A) solely for extending beyond the 56 cumulative days for 
     additional days of temporary operational flexibility--
       (i) no more than necessary to achieve the purposes of this 
     section consistent with the environmental protections in 
     subsections (d) and (e); and
       (ii) including, as appropriate, adjustments to ensure that 
     the actual flow rates during the periods of temporary 
     operational flexibility do not count toward the 5-day and 14-
     day running averages of tidally filtered daily OMR flow 
     requirements under the biological opinions, or
       (B) for other adjustments to operating criteria or to take 
     other urgent actions to address water supply shortages for 
     the least amount of time or volume of diversion necessary as 
     determined by the Commissioner.
       (2) Following the conclusion of the 56 cumulative days of 
     temporary operational flexibility, or the extended number of 
     days covered by the emergency consultation procedures, the 
     Commissioner shall not reinitiate consultation on these 
     adjusted operations, and no mitigation shall be required, if 
     the effects on listed fish species of these operations under 
     this section remain within the range of those authorized 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.). If the Commissioner reinitiates consultation, no 
     mitigation measures shall be required.
       (g) Level of Detail Required for Analysis.--In articulating 
     the determinations required under this section, the 
     Secretaries shall fully satisfy the requirements herein but 
     shall not be expected to provide a greater level of 
     supporting detail for the analysis than feasible to provide 
     within the short timeframe permitted for timely 
     decisionmaking in response to changing conditions in the 
     Delta.

     SEC. 308. EXPEDITING WATER TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3405(a) of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 
     4709(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (4) (as so 
     designated)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``In order to'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In order to''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``Except as 
     provided herein'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Terms.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) (as so designated) 
     the following:
       ``(2) Expedited transfer of water.--The Secretary shall 
     take all necessary actions to facilitate and expedite 
     transfers of Central Valley Project water in accordance 
     with--
       ``(A) this Act;
       ``(B) any other applicable provision of the reclamation 
     laws; and
       ``(C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).'';
       (4) in paragraph (4) (as so designated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``to combination'' and 
     inserting ``or combination''; and
       (B) by striking ``3405(a)(2) of this title'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(5)'';
       (5) in paragraph (5) (as so designated), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(E) The contracting district from which the water is 
     coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a 
     written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after 
     the date of submission of the proposal. If the contracting 
     district or agency or the Secretary determines that the 
     proposal is incomplete, the district or agency or the 
     Secretary shall state with specificity what must be added to 
     or revised for the proposal to be complete.''; and
       (6) in paragraph (6) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``3405(a)(1)(A)-(C), (E), (G), (H), (I), (L), and (M) of this 
     title'' and inserting ``(A) through (C), (E), (G), (H), (I), 
     (L), and (M) of paragraph (4)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) is amended--
       (1) in section 3407(c)(1) (106 Stat. 4726), by striking 
     ``3405(a)(1)(C)'' and inserting ``3405(a)(4)(C)''; and
       (2) in section 3408(i)(1) (106 Stat. 4729), by striking 
     ``3405(a)(1) (A) and (J) of this title'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (A) and (J) of section 3405(a)(4)''.

     SEC. 309. ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY CONSULTATION.

       For adjustments to operating criteria other than under 
     section 308 of this Act or to take urgent actions to address 
     water supply shortages for the least amount of time or volume 
     of diversion necessary as determined by the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation, no mitigation measures shall be required during 
     any year that the Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or 
     at the request of the State of California, and until two 
     succeeding years following either of those events have been 
     completed where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or 
     greater, and any mitigation measures imposed must be based on 
     quantitative data and required only to the extent that such 
     data demonstrates actual harm to species.

     SEC. 310. ADDITIONAL STORAGE AT NEW MELONES.

       The Commissioner of Reclamation is directed to work with 
     local water and irrigation districts in the Stanislaus River 
     Basin to ascertain the water storage made available by the 
     Draft Plan of Operations in New Melones Reservoir (DRPO) for 
     water conservation programs, conjunctive use projects, water 
     transfers, rescheduled project water and other projects to 
     maximize water storage and ensure the beneficial use of the 
     water resources in the Stanislaus River Basin. All such 
     programs and projects shall be implemented according to all 
     applicable laws and regulations. The source of water for any 
     such storage program at New Melones Reservoir shall be made 
     available under a valid water right, consistent with the 
     State of California water transfer guidelines and any other 
     applicable State water law. The Commissioner shall inform the 
     Congress within 18 months setting forth the amount of storage 
     made available by the DRPO that has been put to use under 
     this program, including proposals received by the 
     Commissioner from interested parties for the purpose of this 
     section.

     SEC. 311. REGARDING THE OPERATION OF FOLSOM RESERVOIR.

       The Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration with the 
     Sacramento Water Forum, shall expedite evaluation, completion 
     and implementation of the Modified Lower American River Flow 
     Management Standard developed by the Water Forum in 2015 to 
     improve water supply reliability for Central Valley Project 
     American River water contractors and resource protection in 
     the lower American River during consecutive dry-years under 
     current and future demand and climate change conditions.

     SEC. 312. APPLICANTS.

       In the event that the Bureau of Reclamation or another 
     Federal agency initiates or reinitiates consultation with the 
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), with respect to 
     construction or operation of the Central Valley Project and 
     State Water Project, or any part thereof, the State Water 
     Project contractors and the Central Valley Project 
     contractors will be accorded all the rights and 
     responsibilities extended to applicants in the consultation 
     process.

     SEC. 313. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.

       (a) California State Law Satisfied by Warm Water Fishery.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 5930 through 5948 of the 
     California Fish and Game Code, and all applicable Federal 
     laws, including the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement 
     Act (Public Law 111-11) and the Stipulation of Settlement 
     (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, 
     et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-88-1658-
     LKK/GGH), shall be satisfied by the existence of a warm water 
     fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, but 
     upstream of Gravelly Ford.
       (2) Definition of warm water fishery.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term ``warm water fishery'' means a water 
     system that has an environment suitable for species of fish 
     other than salmon (including all subspecies) and trout 
     (including all subspecies).
       (b) Repeal of the San Joaquin River Settlement.--As of the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall cease any action to implement the San Joaquin 
     River Restoration Settlement Act (subtitle A of title X of 
     Public Law 111-11) and the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural 
     Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., 
     Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-88-1658 LKK/GGH).

     SEC. 314. PROGRAM FOR WATER RESCHEDULING.

       By December 31, 2015, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     develop and implement a program, including rescheduling 
     guidelines for Shasta and Folsom Reservoirs, to allow 
     existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service 
     contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed, and refuge 
     service and municipal and industrial water service 
     contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed and the 
     American River Watershed to reschedule water, provided for 
     under their Central Valley Project contracts, from one year 
     to the next; provided, that the

[[Page 11750]]

     program is consistent with existing rescheduling guidelines 
     as utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation for rescheduling 
     water for Central Valley Project water service contractors 
     that are located South of the Delta.

              TITLE IV--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

     SEC. 401. STUDIES.

       The Secretary of the Interior, through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation, shall--
       (1) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
       (2) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(II) and (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 and submit such studies to the appropriate committees 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 
     November 30, 2016;
       (3) complete the feasibility study described in section 
     103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and 
     submit such study to the appropriate Committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31, 
     2017;
       (4) provide a progress report on the status of the 
     feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until 
     December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include 
     timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact 
     statements, final environmental impact statements, and 
     Records of Decision;
       (5) in conducting any feasibility study under this Act, the 
     reclamation laws, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706), the Fish 
     and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 
     other applicable law, for the purposes of determining 
     feasibility the Secretary shall document, delineate, and 
     publish costs directly relating to the engineering and 
     construction of a water storage project separately from the 
     costs resulting from regulatory compliance or the 
     construction of auxiliary facilities necessary to achieve 
     regulatory compliance; and
       (6) communicate, coordinate and cooperate with public water 
     agencies that contract with the United States for Central 
     Valley Project water and that are expected to participate in 
     the cost pools that will be created for the projects proposed 
     in the feasibility studies under this section.

     SEC. 402. TEMPERANCE FLAT.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Temperance 
     Flat Reservoir Project on the Upper San Joaquin River.
       (2) RMP.--The term ``RMP'' means the document titled 
     ``Bakersfield Field Office, Record of Decision and Approved 
     Resource Management Plan,'' dated December 2014.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Applicability of RMP.--The RMP and findings related 
     thereto shall have no effect on or applicability to the 
     Secretary's determination of feasibility of, or on any 
     findings or environmental review documents related to--
       (1) the Project; or
       (2) actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of the Bay-Delta Authorization Act 
     (title I of Public Law 108-361).
       (c) Duties of Secretary Upon Determination of 
     Feasibility.--If the Secretary finds the Project to be 
     feasible, the Secretary shall manage the land recommended in 
     the RMP for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) in a manner that does not impede any 
     environmental reviews, preconstruction, construction, or 
     other activities of the Project, regardless of whether or not 
     the Secretary submits any official recommendation to Congress 
     under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
       (d) Reserved Water Rights.--Effective December 22, 2014, 
     there shall be no Federal reserved water rights to any 
     segment of the San Joaquin River related to the Project as a 
     result of any designation made under the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).

     SEC. 403. CALFED STORAGE ACCOUNTABILITY.

       If the Secretary of the Interior fails to provide the 
     feasibility studies described in section 401 to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate by the times prescribed, the Secretary shall 
     notify each committee chair individually in person on the 
     status of each project once a month until the feasibility 
     study for that project is provided to Congress.

     SEC. 404. WATER STORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Partnership and Agreements.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, may partner or enter into an agreement on the 
     water storage projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the 
     Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act 
     (Public Law 108-361) (and Acts supplemental and amendatory to 
     the Act) with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant 
     to State law by irrigation districts and other local water 
     districts and local governments within the applicable 
     hydrologic region, to advance those projects.
       (b) Authorization for Project.--If the Secretary determines 
     a project described in section 402(a)(1) and (2) is feasible, 
     the Secretary is authorized to carry out the project in a 
     manner that is substantially in accordance with the 
     recommended plan, and subject to the conditions described in 
     the feasibility study, provided that no Federal funding shall 
     be used to construct the project.

                   TITLE V--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 501. OFFSET FOR STATE WATER PROJECT.

       (a) Implementation Impacts.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall confer with the California Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife in connection with the implementation of this Act on 
     potential impacts to any consistency determination for 
     operations of the State Water Project issued pursuant to 
     California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1.
       (b) Additional Yield.--If, as a result of the application 
     of this Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife--
       (1) revokes the consistency determinations pursuant to 
     California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 that are 
     applicable to the State Water Project;
       (2) amends or issues one or more new consistency 
     determinations pursuant to California Fish and Game Code 
     section 2080.1 in a manner that directly or indirectly 
     results in reduced water supply to the State Water Project as 
     compared with the water supply available under the smelt 
     biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion; or
       (3) requires take authorization under California Fish and 
     Game Code section 2081 for operation of the State Water 
     Project in a manner that directly or indirectly results in 
     reduced water supply to the State Water Project as compared 
     with the water supply available under the smelt biological 
     opinion and the salmonid biological opinion, and as a 
     consequence of the Department's action, Central Valley 
     Project yield is greater than it would have been absent the 
     Department's actions, then that additional yield shall be 
     made available to the State Water Project for delivery to 
     State Water Project contractors to offset losses resulting 
     from the Department's action.
       (c) Notification Related to Environmental Protections.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall immediately notify the 
     Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in 
     writing if the Secretary of the Interior determines that 
     implementation of the smelt biological opinion and the 
     salmonid biological opinion consistent with this Act reduces 
     environmental protections for any species covered by the 
     opinions.

     SEC. 502. AREA OF ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior is directed, 
     in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to 
     California's water rights laws governing water rights 
     priorities and to honor water rights senior to those held by 
     the United States for operation of the Central Valley 
     Project, regardless of the source of priority, including any 
     appropriative water rights initiated prior to December 19, 
     1914, as well as water rights and other priorities perfected 
     or to be perfected pursuant to California Water Code Part 2 
     of Division 2. Article 1.7 (commencing with section 1215 of 
     chapter 1 of part 2 of division 2, sections 10505, 10505.5, 
     11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and sections 12200 to 
     12220, inclusive).
       (b) Diversions.--Any action undertaken by the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to both 
     this Act and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that requires that diversions from 
     the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin River watersheds 
     upstream of the Delta be bypassed shall not be undertaken in 
     a manner that alters the water rights priorities established 
     by California law.
       (c) Endangered Species Act.--Nothing in this title alters 
     the existing authorities provided to and obligations placed 
     upon the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended.
       (d) Contracts.--With respect to individuals and entities 
     with water rights on the Sacramento River, the mandates of 
     this section may be met, in whole or in part, through a 
     contract with the Secretary of the Interior executed pursuant 
     to section 14 of Public Law 76-260; 53 Stat. 1187 (43 U.S.C. 
     389) that is in conformance with the Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts renewed by the Secretary of the Interior 
     in 2005.

     SEC. 503. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure 
     that, except as otherwise provided for in a water service or 
     repayment contract, actions taken in compliance with legal 
     obligations imposed pursuant to or as a result of this Act, 
     including such actions under section 7 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and other 
     applicable Federal and State laws, shall not directly or 
     indirectly--
       (1) result in the involuntary reduction of water supply or 
     fiscal impacts to individuals or districts who receive water 
     from either the State Water Project or the United States 
     under water rights settlement contracts, exchange contracts, 
     water service contracts, repayment contracts, or water supply 
     contracts; or
       (2) cause redirected adverse water supply or fiscal impacts 
     to those within the Sacramento River watershed, the San 
     Joaquin River watershed or the State Water Project service 
     area.
       (b) Costs.--To the extent that costs are incurred solely 
     pursuant to or as a result of this Act and would not 
     otherwise have been incurred by any entity or public or local 
     agency or subdivision of the State of California, such costs 
     shall not be borne by any such entity, agency,

[[Page 11751]]

     or subdivision of the State of California, unless such costs 
     are incurred on a voluntary basis.
       (c) Rights and Obligations Not Modified or Amended.--
     Nothing in this Act shall modify or amend the rights and 
     obligations of the parties to any existing--
       (1) water service, repayment, settlement, purchase, or 
     exchange contract with the United States, including the 
     obligation to satisfy exchange contracts and settlement 
     contracts prior to the allocation of any other Central Valley 
     Project water; or
       (2) State Water Project water supply or settlement contract 
     with the State.

     SEC. 504. ALLOCATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Allocations.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection 
     (b), the Secretary of the Interior is directed, in the 
     operation of the Central Valley Project, to allocate water 
     provided for irrigation purposes to existing Central Valley 
     Project agricultural water service contractors within the 
     Sacramento River Watershed in compliance with the following:
       (A) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities 
     in a ``Wet'' year.
       (B) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities 
     in an ``Above Normal'' year.
       (C) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities 
     in a ``Below Normal'' year that is preceded by an ``Above 
     Normal'' or a ``Wet'' year.
       (D) Not less than 50 percent of their contract quantities 
     in a ``Dry'' year that is preceded by a ``Below Normal,'' an 
     ``Above Normal,'' or a ``Wet'' year.
       (E) In all other years not identified herein, the 
     allocation percentage for existing Central Valley Project 
     agricultural water service contractors within the Sacramento 
     River Watershed shall not be less than twice the allocation 
     percentage to south-of-Delta Central Valley Project 
     agricultural water service contractors, up to 100 percent; 
     provided, that nothing herein shall preclude an allocation to 
     existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service 
     contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed that is 
     greater than twice the allocation percentage to south-of-
     Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water service 
     contractors.
       (2) Conditions.--The Secretary's actions under paragraph 
     (a) shall be subject to--
       (A) the priority of individuals or entities with Sacramento 
     River water rights, including those with Sacramento River 
     Settlement Contracts, that have priority to the diversion and 
     use of Sacramento River water over water rights held by the 
     United States for operations of the Central Valley Project;
       (B) the United States obligation to make a substitute 
     supply of water available to the San Joaquin River Exchange 
     Contractors; and
       (C) the Secretary's obligation to make water available to 
     managed wetlands pursuant to section 3406(d) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575).
       (b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
     Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to--
       (1) modify any provision of a water service contract that 
     addresses municipal and industrial water shortage policies of 
     the Secretary;
       (2) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to adopt 
     or modify municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
       (3) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to 
     implement municipal and industrial water shortage policies; 
     or
       (4) affect allocations to Central Valley Project municipal 
     and industrial contractors pursuant to such policies.
     Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's implementation of 
     subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or affect, directly, 
     the operations of the Central Valley Project's American River 
     Division or any deliveries from that Division, its units or 
     facilities.
       (c) No Effect on Allocations.--This section shall not--
       (1) affect the allocation of water to Friant Division 
     contractors; or
       (2) result in the involuntary reduction in contract water 
     allocations to individuals or entities with contracts to 
     receive water from the Friant Division.
       (d) Program for Water Rescheduling.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall develop and implement a program, not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to 
     provide for the opportunity for existing Central Valley 
     Project agricultural water service contractors within the 
     Sacramento River Watershed to reschedule water, provided for 
     under their Central Valley Project water service contracts, 
     from one year to the next.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural 
     water service contractors within the Sacramento River 
     Watershed'' means water service contractors within the 
     Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the 
     Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in 
     effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that 
     provides water for irrigation.
       (2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the 
     meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water 
     Year Type (40-30-30) Index.

     SEC. 505. EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.

       Nothing in this Act preempts or modifies any existing 
     obligation of the United States under Federal reclamation law 
     to operate the Central Valley Project in conformity with 
     State law, including established water rights priorities.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.

       (a) In General.--The authorized service area of the Central 
     Valley Project authorized under the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706) shall 
     include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman City 
     Community Services District, California, as in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Long-Term Contract.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706) and 
     subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     accordance with the Federal reclamation laws, shall enter 
     into a long-term contract with the Kettleman City Community 
     Services District, California, under terms and conditions 
     mutually agreeable to the parties, for the delivery of up to 
     900 acre-feet of Central Valley Project water for municipal 
     and industrial use.
       (2) Limitation.--Central Valley Project water deliveries 
     authorized under the contract entered into under paragraph 
     (1) shall be limited to the minimal quantity necessary to 
     meet the immediate needs of the Kettleman City Community 
     Services District, California, in the event that local 
     supplies or State Water Project allocations are insufficient 
     to meet those needs.
       (c) Permit.--The Secretary shall apply for a permit with 
     the State for a joint place of use for water deliveries 
     authorized under the contract entered into under subsection 
     (b) with respect to the expanded service area under 
     subsection (a), consistent with State law.
       (d) Additional Costs.--If any additional infrastructure, 
     water treatment, or related costs are needed to implement 
     this section, those costs shall be the responsibility of the 
     non-Federal entity.

     SEC. 602. OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR RESTORATION FUND.

       (a) Plan; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 
     4726) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Plan on Expenditure of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Advisory Board, shall submit to 
     Congress a plan for the expenditure of all of the funds 
     deposited into the Restoration Fund during the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Contents.--The plan shall include an analysis of the 
     cost-effectiveness of each expenditure.
       ``(h) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Restoration 
     Fund Advisory Board (referred to in this section as the 
     `Advisory Board'), which shall be composed of 11 members 
     appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint members to 
     the Advisory Board that represent the various Central Valley 
     Project stakeholders, of whom--
       ``(i) 4 members shall be agricultural users of the Central 
     Valley Project, including at least one agricultural user from 
     north-of-the-Delta and one agricultural user from south-of-
     the-Delta;
       ``(ii) 2 members shall be municipal and industrial users of 
     the Central Valley Project, including one municipal and 
     industrial user from north-of-the-Delta and one municipal and 
     industrial user from south-of-the-Delta;
       ``(iii) 3 members shall be power contractors of the Central 
     Valley Project, including at least one power contractor from 
     north-of-the-Delta and from south-of-the-Delta;
       ``(iv) 1 member shall be a representative of a Federal 
     national wildlife refuge that contracts for Central Valley 
     Project water supplies with the Bureau of Reclamation; and
       ``(v) 1 member shall have expertise in the economic impacts 
     of the changes to water operations.
       ``(B) Observer.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Commerce may each designate a representative to act as an 
     observer of the Advisory Board.
       ``(C) Chair.--The Secretary shall appoint 1 of the members 
     described in subparagraph (A) to serve as Chair of the 
     Advisory Board.
       ``(3) Terms.--The term of each member of the Advisory Board 
     shall be 4 years.
       ``(4) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Panel shall be made not later than--
       ``(A) the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; or
       ``(B) in the case of a vacancy on the Panel described in 
     subsection (c)(2), the date that is 120 days after the date 
     on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(5) Vacancies.--
       ``(A) In general.--A vacancy on the Panel shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made and 
     shall be subject to any conditions that applied with respect 
     to the original appointment.
       ``(B) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to fill 
     a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the 
     member replaced.
       ``(C) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member shall 
     not expire before the date on which the successor of the 
     member takes office.
       ``(6) Removal.--A member of the Panel may be removed from 
     office by the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(7) Federal advisory committee act.--The Panel shall not 
     be subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act.

[[Page 11752]]

       ``(8) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are--
       ``(A) to meet not less frequently than semiannually to 
     develop and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding 
     priorities and spending levels on projects and programs 
     carried out under this title;
       ``(B) to ensure that any advice given or recommendation 
     made by the Advisory Board reflects the independent judgment 
     of the Advisory Board;
       ``(C) not later than December 31, 2015, and annually 
     thereafter, to submit to the Secretary and Congress the 
     recommendations under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(D) not later than December 31, 2015, and biennially 
     thereafter, to submit to Congress details of the progress 
     made in achieving the actions required under section 3406.
       ``(9) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate 
     agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and 
     services of any Federal agency.
       ``(10) Cooperation and assistance.--
       ``(A) Provision of information.--Upon request of the Panel 
     Chair for information or assistance to facilitate carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     promptly provide such information, unless otherwise 
     prohibited by law.
       ``(B) Space and assistance.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall provide the Panel with appropriate and adequate office 
     space, together with such equipment, office supplies, and 
     communications facilities and services as may be necessary 
     for the operation of the Panel, and shall provide necessary 
     maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and 
     facilities located therein.''.

     SEC. 603. WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING.

       (a) In General.--All Central Valley Project water, except 
     Central Valley Project water released pursuant to U.S. 
     Department of the Interior Record of Decision, Trinity River 
     Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement/Environmental Impact Report dated December 2000 
     used to implement an action undertaken for a fishery 
     beneficial purpose that was not imposed by terms and 
     conditions existing in licenses, permits, and other 
     agreements pertaining to the Central Valley Project under 
     applicable State or Federal law existing on October 30, 1992, 
     shall be credited to the quantity of Central Valley Project 
     yield dedicated and managed under this section; provided, 
     that nothing herein shall affect the Secretary of the 
     Interior's duty to comply with any otherwise lawful 
     requirement imposed on operations of the Central Valley 
     Project under any provision of Federal or State law.
       (b) Reclamation Policies and Allocations.--Reclamation 
     policies and allocations shall not be based upon any premise 
     or assumption that Central Valley Project contract supplies 
     are supplemental or secondary to any other contractor source 
     of supply.

     SEC. 604. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER REPLACEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 2016, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall update and implement the plan 
     required by section 3408(j) of title XXXIV of Public Law 102-
     575. The Secretary shall notify the Congress annually 
     describing the progress of implementing the plan required by 
     section 3408(j) of title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575.
       (b) Potential Amendment.--If the plan required in 
     subsection (a) has not increased the Central Valley Project 
     yield by 800,000 acre-feet within 5 years after the enactment 
     of this Act, then section 3406 of the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
       ``(C) If by March 15, 2021, and any year thereafter the 
     quantity of Central Valley Project water forecasted to be 
     made available to all water service or repayment contractors 
     of the Central Valley Project is below 50 percent of the 
     total quantity of water to be made available under said 
     contracts, the quantity of Central Valley Project yield 
     dedicated and managed for that year under this paragraph 
     shall be reduced by 25 percent.''.

     SEC. 605. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.

       After the date of the enactment of this title, and 
     regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the 
     Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
     spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially 
     propagated strains of a species in making any determination 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) that relates to any anadromous or pelagic fish species 
     that resides for all or a portion of its life in the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or rivers tributary thereto.

     SEC. 606. TRANSFER THE NEW MELONES UNIT, CENTRAL VALLEY 
                   PROJECT TO INTERESTED PROVIDERS.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     following terms apply:
       (1) Interested local water and power providers.--The term 
     ``interested local water and power providers'' includes the 
     Calaveras County Water District, Calaveras Public Power 
     Agency, Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District, 
     Oakdale Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District, 
     South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Tuolumne Utilities 
     District, Tuolumne Public Power Agency, and Union Public 
     Utilities District.
       (2) New melones unit, central valley project.--The term 
     ``New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project'' means all 
     Federal reclamation projects located within or diverting 
     water from or to the watershed of the Stanislaus and San 
     Joaquin rivers and their tributaries as authorized by the Act 
     of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 850), and all Acts amendatory or 
     supplemental thereto, including the Act of October 23, 1962 
     (76 Stat. 1173).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into negotiations with 
     interested local water and power providers for the transfer 
     ownership, control, and operation of the New Melones Unit, 
     Central Valley Project to interested local water and power 
     providers within the State of California.
       (c) Transfer.--The Secretary shall transfer the New Melones 
     Unit, Central Valley Project in accordance with an agreement 
     reached pursuant to negotiations conducted under subsection 
     (b).
       (d) Notification.--Not later than 360 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall notify the appropriate committees of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate--
       (1) if an agreement is reached pursuant to negotiations 
     conducted under subsection (b), the terms of that agreement;
       (2) of the status of formal discussions with interested 
     local water and power providers for the transfer of 
     ownership, control, and operation of the New Melones Unit, 
     Central Valley Project to interested local water and power 
     providers;
       (3) of all unresolved issues that are preventing execution 
     of an agreement for the transfer of ownership, control, and 
     operation of the New Melones Unit, Central Valley Project to 
     interested local water and power providers;
       (4) on analysis and review of studies, reports, 
     discussions, hearing transcripts, negotiations, and other 
     information about past and present formal discussions that--
       (A) have a serious impact on the progress of the formal 
     discussions;
       (B) explain or provide information about the issues that 
     prevent progress or finalization of formal discussions; or
       (C) are, in whole or in part, preventing execution of an 
     agreement for the transfer; and
       (5) of any actions the Secretary recommends that the United 
     States should take to finalize an agreement for that 
     transfer.

     SEC. 607. BASIN STUDIES.

       (a) Authorized Studies.--The Secretary of the Interior is 
     authorized and directed to expand opportunities and expedite 
     completion of assessments under section 9503(b) of the SECURE 
     Water Act (42 U.S.C. 10363(b)), with non-Federal partners, of 
     individual sub-basins and watersheds within major Reclamation 
     river basins; and shall ensure timely decision and expedited 
     implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies 
     developed through the special study process.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal partners shall be 
     responsible for 100 percent of the cost of the special 
     studies.
       (2) Contributed funds.--The Secretary may accept and use 
     contributions of funds from the non-Federal partners to carry 
     out activities under the special studies.

     SEC. 608. OPERATIONS OF THE TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.

       The Secretary of the Interior, in the operation of the 
     Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project, shall 
     not make releases from Lewiston Dam in excess of the volume 
     for each water-year type required by the U.S. Department of 
     the Interior Record of Decision, Trinity River Mainstem 
     Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement/
     Environmental Impact Report dated December 2000.
       (1) A maximum of 369,000 acre-feet in a ``Critically Dry'' 
     year.
       (2) A maximum of 453,000 acre-feet in a ``Dry'' year.
       (3) A maximum of 647,000 acre-feet in a ``Normal'' year.
       (4) A maximum of 701,000 acre-feet in a ``Wet'' year.
       (5) A maximum of 815,000 acre-feet in an ``Extremely Wet'' 
     year.

     SEC. 609. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.

       Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife 
     purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central 
     Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2018, at the 
     lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
       ``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in 
     accordance with this Act.''.

     SEC. 610. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

       Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks 
     of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of 
     October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers 
     and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San 
     Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,'';
       (3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) the term `reasonable flow' means water flows capable 
     of being maintained taking into

[[Page 11753]]

     account competing consumptive uses of water and economic, 
     environmental, and social factors.''.

                 TITLE VII--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Water Supply Permitting 
     Coordination Act''.

     SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       (3) Qualifying projects.--The term ``qualifying projects'' 
     means new surface water storage projects in the States 
     covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 
     1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on lands administered by 
     the Department of the Interior or the Department of 
     Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-of-way, lease, 
     or any private holding.
       (4) Cooperating agencies.--The term ``cooperating agency'' 
     means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review, 
     analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other 
     approval or decision required for a qualifying project under 
     applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency 
     subject to section 703(c).

     SEC. 703. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Establishment of Lead Agency.--The Bureau of 
     Reclamation is established as the lead agency for purposes of 
     coordinating all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements, 
     permits, licenses, or other approvals or decisions required 
     under Federal law to construct qualifying projects.
       (b) Identification and Establishment of Cooperating 
     Agencies.--The Commissioner of the Bureau shall--
       (1) identify, as early as practicable upon receipt of an 
     application for a qualifying project, any Federal agency that 
     may have jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion, 
     statement, permit, license, approval, or decision required 
     for a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and 
     regulations; and
       (2) notify any such agency, within a reasonable timeframe, 
     that the agency has been designated as a cooperating agency 
     in regards to the qualifying project unless that agency 
     responds to the Bureau in writing, within a timeframe set 
     forth by the Bureau, notifying the Bureau that the agency--
       (A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     qualifying project;
       (B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     qualifying project or any review, analysis, opinion, 
     statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision 
     associated therewith; or
       (C) does not intend to submit comments on the qualifying 
     project or conduct any review of such a project or make any 
     decision with respect to such project in a manner other than 
     in cooperation with the Bureau.
       (c) State Authority.--A State in which a qualifying project 
     is being considered may choose, consistent with State law--
       (1) to participate as a cooperating agency; and
       (2) to make subject to the processes of this title all 
     State agencies that--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the qualifying project;
       (B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 
     opinion for the qualifying project; or
       (C) are required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or approval for the qualifying project.

     SEC. 704. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The principal responsibilities of the 
     Bureau under this title are to--
       (1) serve as the point of contact for applicants, State 
     agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed 
     qualifying projects;
       (2) coordinate preparation of unified environmental 
     documentation that will serve as the basis for all Federal 
     decisions necessary to authorize the use of Federal lands for 
     qualifying projects; and
       (3) coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for 
     project development and construction of qualifying projects.
       (b) Coordination Process.--The Bureau shall have the 
     following coordination responsibilities:
       (1) Pre-application coordination.--Notify cooperating 
     agencies of proposed qualifying projects not later than 30 
     days after receipt of a proposal and facilitate a 
     preapplication meeting for prospective applicants, relevant 
     Federal and State agencies, and Indian tribes to--
       (A) explain applicable processes, data requirements, and 
     applicant submissions necessary to complete the required 
     Federal agency reviews within the timeframe established; and
       (B) establish the schedule for the qualifying project.
       (2) Consultation with cooperating agencies.--Consult with 
     the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review 
     process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely 
     manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies.
       (3) Schedule.--Work with the qualifying project applicant 
     and cooperating agencies to establish a project schedule. In 
     establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among 
     other factors--
       (A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under 
     applicable laws and regulations;
       (B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and 
     the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable;
       (C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying 
     project;
       (D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying 
     project; and
       (E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that may be affected by the qualifying project.
       (4) Environmental compliance.--Prepare a unified 
     environmental review document for each qualifying project 
     application, incorporating a single environmental record on 
     which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue 
     approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project 
     approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies 
     make necessary decisions, within their respective 
     authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with 
     the following timelines:
       (A) Not later than one year after acceptance of a completed 
     project application when an environmental assessment and 
     finding of no significant impact is determined to be the 
     appropriate level of review under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (B) Not later than one year and 30 days after the close of 
     the public comment period for a draft environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact 
     statement is required under the same.
       (5) Consolidated administrative record.--Maintain a 
     consolidated administrative record of the information 
     assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis 
     for agency decisions.
       (6) Project data records.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, ensure that all project data is 
     submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic 
     format, compile, and where authorized under existing law, 
     make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the 
     qualifying project applicant, and to the public.
       (7) Project manager.--Appoint a project manager for each 
     qualifying project. The project manager shall have authority 
     to oversee the project and to facilitate the issuance of the 
     relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be 
     responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau 
     responsibilities set forth in this section and all 
     cooperating agency responsibilities under section 705.

     SEC. 705. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Adherence to Bureau Schedule.--Upon notification of an 
     application for a qualifying project, all cooperating 
     agencies shall submit to the Bureau a timeframe under which 
     the cooperating agency reasonably considers it will be able 
     to complete its authorizing responsibilities. The Bureau 
     shall use the timeframe submitted under this subsection to 
     establish the project schedule under section 704, and the 
     cooperating agencies shall adhere to the project schedule 
     established by the Bureau.
       (b) Environmental Record.--Cooperating agencies shall 
     submit to the Bureau all environmental review material 
     produced or compiled in the course of carrying out activities 
     required under Federal law consistent with the project 
     schedule established by the Bureau.
       (c) Data Submission.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, the cooperating agencies shall 
     submit all relevant project data to the Bureau in a generally 
     accessible electronic format subject to the project schedule 
     set forth by the Bureau.

     SEC. 706. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in 
     accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 
     553), may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-
     Federal public entity to expedite the evaluation of a permit 
     of that entity related to a qualifying project.
       (b) Effect on Permitting.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under 
     subsection (a) will not impact impartial decisionmaking with 
     respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.
       (2) Evaluation of permits.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits 
     carried out using funds accepted under this section shall--
       (A) be reviewed by the Regional Director of the Bureau, or 
     the Regional Director's designee, of the region in which the 
     qualifying project or activity is located; and
       (B) use the same procedures for decisions that would 
     otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for 
     similar projects or activities not carried out using funds 
     authorized under this section.
       (3) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary and the cooperating agencies receiving 
     funds under this section for qualifying projects shall ensure 
     that the use of the funds accepted under this section for 
     such projects shall not--
       (A) impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the 
     issuance of permits, either substantively or procedurally; or
       (B) diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or 
     regulatory authorities of such agencies.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted 
     under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the 
     evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
       (d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized 
     under this section are made available to the public, 
     including on the Internet.

[[Page 11754]]



         TITLE VIII--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation 
     Project Streamlining Act''.

     SEC. 802. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Environmental impact statement.--The term 
     ``environmental impact statement'' means the detailed 
     statement of environmental impacts of a project required to 
     be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (2) Environmental review process.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``environmental review process'' 
     means the process of preparing an environmental impact 
     statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, 
     or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for a project study.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``environmental review process'' 
     includes the process for and completion of any environmental 
     permit, approval, review, or study required for a project 
     study under any Federal law other than the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (3) Federal jurisdictional agency.--The term ``Federal 
     jurisdictional agency'' means a Federal agency with 
     jurisdiction delegated by law, regulation, order, or 
     otherwise over a review, analysis, opinion, statement, 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision required for a 
     project study under applicable Federal laws (including 
     regulations).
       (4) Federal lead agency.--The term ``Federal lead agency'' 
     means the Bureau of Reclamation.
       (5) Project.--The term ``project'' means a surface water 
     project, a project under the purview of title XVI of Public 
     Law 102-575, or a rural water supply project investigated 
     under Public Law 109-451 to be carried out, funded or 
     operated in whole or in party by the Secretary pursuant to 
     the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and 
     Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 
     371 et seq.).
       (6) Project sponsor.--The term ``project sponsor'' means a 
     State, regional, or local authority or instrumentality or 
     other qualifying entity, such as a water conservation 
     district, irrigation district, water conservancy district, 
     joint powers authority, mutual water company, canal company, 
     rural water district or association, or any other entity that 
     has the capacity to contract with the United States under 
     Federal reclamation law.
       (7) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to the 
     Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts 
     supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et 
     seq.).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (9) Surface water storage.--The term ``surface water 
     storage'' means any surface water reservoir or impoundment 
     that would be owned, funded or operated in whole or in part 
     by the Bureau of Reclamation or that would be integrated into 
     a larger system owned, operated or administered in whole or 
     in part by the Bureau of Reclamation.

     SEC. 803. ACCELERATION OF STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--To the extent practicable, a project study 
     initiated by the Secretary, after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388), 
     and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, 
     shall--
       (1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report 
     not later than 3 years after the date of initiation;
       (2) have a maximum Federal cost of $3,000,000; and
       (3) ensure that personnel from the local project area, 
     region, and headquarters levels of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     concurrently conduct the review required under this section.
       (b) Extension.--If the Secretary determines that a project 
     study described in subsection (a) will not be conducted in 
     accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary, not later than 
     30 days after the date of making the determination, shall--
       (1) prepare an updated project study schedule and cost 
     estimate;
       (2) notify the non-Federal project cost-sharing partner 
     that the project study has been delayed; and
       (3) provide written notice to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the 
     reasons the requirements of subsection (a) are not 
     attainable.
       (c) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may extend the timeline of a 
     project study by a period not to exceed 3 years, if the 
     Secretary determines that the project study is too complex to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a).
       (2) Factors.--In making a determination that a study is too 
     complex to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the type, size, location, scope, and overall cost of 
     the project;
       (B) whether the project will use any innovative design or 
     construction techniques;
       (C) whether the project will require significant action by 
     other Federal, State, or local agencies;
       (D) whether there is significant public dispute as to the 
     nature or effects of the project; and
       (E) whether there is significant public dispute as to the 
     economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (3) Notification.--Each time the Secretary makes a 
     determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     provide written notice to the Committee on Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the results of that 
     determination, including an identification of the specific 
     one or more factors used in making the determination that the 
     project is complex.
       (4) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not extend the 
     timeline for a project study for a period of more than 7 
     years, and any project study that is not completed before 
     that date shall no longer be authorized.
       (d) Reviews.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     initiation of a project study described in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) take all steps necessary to initiate the process for 
     completing federally mandated reviews that the Secretary is 
     required to complete as part of the study, including the 
     environmental review process under section 805;
       (2) convene a meeting of all Federal, tribal, and State 
     agencies identified under section 805(d) that may--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
     analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
       (C) be required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision for the 
     project study; and
       (3) take all steps necessary to provide information that 
     will enable required reviews and analyses related to the 
     project to be conducted by other agencies in a thorough and 
     timely manner.
       (e) Interim Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report 
     that describes--
       (1) the status of the implementation of the planning 
     process under this section, including the number of 
     participating projects;
       (2) a review of project delivery schedules, including a 
     description of any delays on those studies initiated prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary 
     to support efforts to expedite the project.
       (f) Final Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report 
     that describes--
       (1) the status of the implementation of this section, 
     including a description of each project study subject to the 
     requirements of this section;
       (2) the amount of time taken to complete each project 
     study; and
       (3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary 
     to support efforts to expedite the project study process, 
     including an analysis of whether the limitation established 
     by subsection (a)(2) needs to be adjusted to address the 
     impacts of inflation.

     SEC. 804. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) expedite the completion of any ongoing project study 
     initiated before the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     justified in a completed report, proceed directly to 
     preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the 
     project in accordance with the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 
     Stat. 388), and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary 
     thereto.

     SEC. 805. PROJECT ACCELERATION.

       (a) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall apply to--
       (A) each project study that is initiated after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and for which an environmental impact 
     statement is prepared under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (B) the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary, to 
     other project studies initiated before the date of enactment 
     of this Act and for which an environmental review process 
     document is prepared under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (C) any project study for the development of a non-
     federally owned and operated surface water storage project 
     for which the Secretary determines there is a demonstrable 
     Federal interest and the project--
       (i) is located in a river basin where other Bureau of 
     Reclamation water projects are located;
       (ii) will create additional water supplies that support 
     Bureau of Reclamation water projects; or
       (iii) will become integrated into the operation of Bureau 
     of Reclamation water projects.
       (2) Flexibility.--Any authority granted under this section 
     may be exercised, and any requirement established under this 
     section may be satisfied, for the conduct of an environmental 
     review process for a project study, a class of project 
     studies, or a program of project studies.
       (3) List of project studies.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall annually prepare, and 
     make publicly available, a list of all project studies that 
     the Secretary has determined--
       (i) meets the standards described in paragraph (1); and
       (ii) does not have adequate funding to make substantial 
     progress toward the completion of the project study.

[[Page 11755]]

       (B) Inclusions.--The Secretary shall include for each 
     project study on the list under subparagraph (A) a 
     description of the estimated amounts necessary to make 
     substantial progress on the project study.
       (b) Project Review Process.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and implement 
     a coordinated environmental review process for the 
     development of project studies.
       (2) Coordinated review.--The coordinated environmental 
     review process described in paragraph (1) shall require that 
     any review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or 
     other approval or decision issued or made by a Federal, 
     State, or local governmental agency or an Indian tribe for a 
     project study described in subsection (b) be conducted, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, concurrently with any other 
     applicable governmental agency or Indian tribe.
       (3) Timing.--The coordinated environmental review process 
     under this subsection shall be completed not later than the 
     date on which the Secretary, in consultation and concurrence 
     with the agencies identified under section 805(d), 
     establishes with respect to the project study.
       (c) Lead Agencies.--
       (1) Joint lead agencies.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and the requirements of section 1506.8 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), 
     including the concurrence of the proposed joint lead agency, 
     a project sponsor may serve as the joint lead agency.
       (B) Project sponsor as joint lead agency.--A project 
     sponsor that is a State or local governmental entity may--
       (i) with the concurrence of the Secretary, serve as a joint 
     lead agency with the Federal lead agency for purposes of 
     preparing any environmental document under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); 
     and
       (ii) prepare any environmental review process document 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) required in support of any action or 
     approval by the Secretary if--

       (I) the Secretary provides guidance in the preparation 
     process and independently evaluates that document;
       (II) the project sponsor complies with all requirements 
     applicable to the Secretary under--

       (aa) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (bb) any regulation implementing that Act; and
       (cc) any other applicable Federal law; and

       (III) the Secretary approves and adopts the document before 
     the Secretary takes any subsequent action or makes any 
     approval based on that document, regardless of whether the 
     action or approval of the Secretary results in Federal 
     funding.

       (2) Duties.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
       (A) the project sponsor complies with all design and 
     mitigation commitments made jointly by the Secretary and the 
     project sponsor in any environmental document prepared by the 
     project sponsor in accordance with this subsection; and
       (B) any environmental document prepared by the project 
     sponsor is appropriately supplemented to address any changes 
     to the project the Secretary determines are necessary.
       (3) Adoption and use of documents.--Any environmental 
     document prepared in accordance with this subsection shall be 
     adopted and used by any Federal agency making any 
     determination related to the project study to the same extent 
     that the Federal agency could adopt or use a document 
     prepared by another Federal agency under--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (B) parts 1500 through 1508 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (4) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With respect 
     to the environmental review process for any project study, 
     the Federal lead agency shall have authority and 
     responsibility--
       (A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper and 
     within the authority of the Federal lead agency to facilitate 
     the expeditious resolution of the environmental review 
     process for the project study; and
       (B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental 
     impact statement or other environmental review document for a 
     project study required to be completed under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is 
     completed in accordance with this section and applicable 
     Federal law.
       (d) Participating and Cooperating Agencies.--
       (1) Identification of jurisdictional agencies.--With 
     respect to carrying out the environmental review process for 
     a project study, the Secretary shall identify, as early as 
     practicable in the environmental review process, all Federal, 
     State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that 
     may--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
     analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
       (C) be required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision for the 
     project study.
       (2) State authority.--If the environmental review process 
     is being implemented by the Secretary for a project study 
     within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with 
     State law, may choose to participate in the process and to 
     make subject to the process all State agencies that--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, 
     opinion, or statement for the project study; or
       (C) are required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision for the 
     project study.
       (3) Invitation.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall invite, as 
     early as practicable in the environmental review process, any 
     agency identified under paragraph (1) to become a 
     participating or cooperating agency, as applicable, in the 
     environmental review process for the project study.
       (B) Deadline.--An invitation to participate issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall set a deadline by which a response to 
     the invitation shall be submitted, which may be extended by 
     the Federal lead agency for good cause.
       (4) Procedures.--Section 1501.6 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Bureau of Reclamation Project Streamlining Act) shall 
     govern the identification and the participation of a 
     cooperating agency.
       (5) Federal cooperating agencies.--Any Federal agency that 
     is invited by the Federal lead agency to participate in the 
     environmental review process for a project study shall be 
     designated as a cooperating agency by the Federal lead agency 
     unless the invited agency informs the Federal lead agency, in 
     writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the 
     invited agency--
       (A)(i) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     project;
       (ii) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     project; or
       (iii) does not have adequate funds to participate in the 
     project; and
       (B) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
       (6) Administration.--A participating or cooperating agency 
     shall comply with this section and any schedule established 
     under this section.
       (7) Effect of designation.--Designation as a participating 
     or cooperating agency under this subsection shall not imply 
     that the participating or cooperating agency--
       (A) supports a proposed project; or
       (B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with 
     respect to evaluation of, the project.
       (8) Concurrent reviews.--Each participating or cooperating 
     agency shall--
       (A) carry out the obligations of that agency under other 
     applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the 
     required environmental review process, unless doing so would 
     prevent the participating or cooperating agency from 
     conducting needed analysis or otherwise carrying out those 
     obligations; and
       (B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and 
     procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of the environmental review process in a timely, 
     coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.
       (e) Non-Federal Projects Integrated Into Reclamation 
     Systems.--The Federal lead agency shall serve in that 
     capacity for the entirety of all non-Federal projects that 
     will be integrated into a larger system owned, operated or 
     administered in whole or in part by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       (f) Non-Federal Project.--If the Secretary determines that 
     a project can be expedited by a non-Federal sponsor and that 
     there is a demonstrable Federal interest in expediting that 
     project, the Secretary shall take such actions as are 
     necessary to advance such a project as a non-Federal project, 
     including, but not limited to, entering into agreements with 
     the non-Federal sponsor of such project to support the 
     planning, design and permitting of such project as a non-
     Federal project.
       (g) Programmatic Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue guidance 
     regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the 
     environmental review process that--
       (A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues;
       (B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at each 
     level of review;
       (C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with 
     participating and cooperating agencies, including the 
     creation of a list of all data that are needed to carry out 
     an environmental review process; and
       (D) complies with--
       (i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (ii) all other applicable laws.
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that 
     paragraph, consult with relevant Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies, Indian tribes, and the public on the 
     appropriate use and scope of the programmatic approaches;
       (B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among 
     relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, and 
     Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, especially 
     with respect to including reviews with a broad geographical 
     scope;
       (C) ensure that the programmatic reviews--
       (i) promote transparency, including of the analyses and 
     data used in the environmental review process, the treatment 
     of any deferred issues raised by Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies, Indian tribes, or the public, and the 
     temporal and special scales to be used to analyze those 
     issues;
       (ii) use accurate and timely information in the 
     environmental review process, including--

[[Page 11756]]

       (I) criteria for determining the general duration of the 
     usefulness of the review; and
       (II) the timeline for updating any out-of-date review;

       (iii) describe--

       (I) the relationship between programmatic analysis and 
     future tiered analysis; and
       (II) the role of the public in the creation of future 
     tiered analysis; and

       (iv) are available to other relevant Federal, State, and 
     local governmental agencies, Indian tribes, and the public;
       (D) allow not fewer than 60 days of public notice and 
     comment on any proposed guidance; and
       (E) address any comments received under subparagraph (D).
       (h) Coordinated Reviews.--
       (1) Coordination plan.--
       (A) Establishment.--The Federal lead agency shall, after 
     consultation with and with the concurrence of each 
     participating and cooperating agency and the project sponsor 
     or joint lead agency, as applicable, establish a plan for 
     coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment 
     on, the environmental review process for a project study or a 
     category of project studies.
       (B) Schedule.--
       (i) In general.--As soon as practicable but not later than 
     45 days after the close of the public comment period on a 
     draft environmental impact statement, the Federal lead 
     agency, after consultation with and the concurrence of each 
     participating and cooperating agency and the project sponsor 
     or joint lead agency, as applicable, shall establish, as part 
     of the coordination plan established in subparagraph (A), a 
     schedule for completion of the environmental review process 
     for the project study.
       (ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing a 
     schedule, the Secretary shall consider factors such as--

       (I) the responsibilities of participating and cooperating 
     agencies under applicable laws;
       (II) the resources available to the project sponsor, joint 
     lead agency, and other relevant Federal and State agencies, 
     as applicable;
       (III) the overall size and complexity of the project;
       (IV) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; and
       (V) the sensitivity of the natural and historical resources 
     that could be affected by the project.

       (iii) Modifications.--The Secretary may--

       (I) lengthen a schedule established under clause (i) for 
     good cause; and
       (II) shorten a schedule only with concurrence of the 
     affected participating and cooperating agencies and the 
     project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable.

       (iv) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule established under 
     clause (i) shall be--

       (I) provided to each participating and cooperating agency 
     and the project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable; 
     and
       (II) made available to the public.

       (2) Comment deadlines.--The Federal lead agency shall 
     establish the following deadlines for comment during the 
     environmental review process for a project study:
       (A) Draft environmental impact statements.--For comments by 
     Federal and State agencies and the public on a draft 
     environmental impact statement, a period of not more than 60 
     days after publication in the Federal Register of notice of 
     the date of public availability of the draft environmental 
     impact statement, unless--
       (i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the 
     Federal lead agency, the project sponsor or joint lead 
     agency, as applicable, and all participating and cooperating 
     agencies; or
       (ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency 
     for good cause.
       (B) Other environmental review processes.--For all other 
     comment periods established by the Federal lead agency for 
     agency or public comments in the environmental review 
     process, a period of not more than 30 days after the date on 
     which the materials on which comment is requested are made 
     available, unless--
       (i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the 
     Federal lead agency, the project sponsor, or joint lead 
     agency, as applicable, and all participating and cooperating 
     agencies; or
       (ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency 
     for good cause.
       (3) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--In any case 
     in which a decision under any Federal law relating to a 
     project study, including the issuance or denial of a permit 
     or license, is required to be made by the date described in 
     subsection (i)(5)(B), the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate--
       (A) as soon as practicable after the 180-day period 
     described in subsection (i)(5)(B), an initial notice of the 
     failure of the Federal agency to make the decision; and
       (B) every 60 days thereafter until such date as all 
     decisions of the Federal agency relating to the project study 
     have been made by the Federal agency, an additional notice 
     that describes the number of decisions of the Federal agency 
     that remain outstanding as of the date of the additional 
     notice.
       (4) Involvement of the public.--Nothing in this subsection 
     reduces any time period provided for public comment in the 
     environmental review process under applicable Federal law 
     (including regulations).
       (5) Transparency reporting.--
       (A) Reporting requirements.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish and maintain an electronic database and, in 
     coordination with other Federal and State agencies, issue 
     reporting requirements to make publicly available the status 
     and progress with respect to compliance with applicable 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and any other Federal, State, or 
     local approval or action required for a project study for 
     which this section is applicable.
       (B) Project study transparency.--Consistent with the 
     requirements established under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall make publicly available the status and 
     progress of any Federal, State, or local decision, action, or 
     approval required under applicable laws for each project 
     study for which this section is applicable.
       (i) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
       (1) Cooperation.--The Federal lead agency, the cooperating 
     agencies, and any participating agencies shall work 
     cooperatively in accordance with this section to identify and 
     resolve issues that could delay completion of the 
     environmental review process or result in the denial of any 
     approval required for the project study under applicable 
     laws.
       (2) Federal lead agency responsibilities.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall make 
     information available to the cooperating agencies and 
     participating agencies as early as practicable in the 
     environmental review process regarding the environmental and 
     socioeconomic resources located within the project area and 
     the general locations of the alternatives under 
     consideration.
       (B) Data sources.--The information under subparagraph (A) 
     may be based on existing data sources, including geographic 
     information systems mapping.
       (3) Cooperating and participating agency 
     responsibilities.--Based on information received from the 
     Federal lead agency, cooperating and participating agencies 
     shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues of 
     concern regarding the potential environmental or 
     socioeconomic impacts of the project, including any issues 
     that could substantially delay or prevent an agency from 
     granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the 
     project study.
       (4) Accelerated issue resolution and elevation.--
       (A) In general.--On the request of a participating or 
     cooperating agency or project sponsor, the Secretary shall 
     convene an issue resolution meeting with the relevant 
     participating and cooperating agencies and the project 
     sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, to resolve 
     issues that may--
       (i) delay completion of the environmental review process; 
     or
       (ii) result in denial of any approval required for the 
     project study under applicable laws.
       (B) Meeting date.--A meeting requested under this paragraph 
     shall be held not later than 21 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary receives the request for the meeting, unless 
     the Secretary determines that there is good cause to extend 
     that deadline.
       (C) Notification.--On receipt of a request for a meeting 
     under this paragraph, the Secretary shall notify all relevant 
     participating and cooperating agencies of the request, 
     including the issue to be resolved and the date for the 
     meeting.
       (D) Elevation of issue resolution.--If a resolution cannot 
     be achieved within the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     a meeting under this paragraph and a determination is made by 
     the Secretary that all information necessary to resolve the 
     issue has been obtained, the Secretary shall forward the 
     dispute to the heads of the relevant agencies for resolution.
       (E) Convention by secretary.--The Secretary may convene an 
     issue resolution meeting under this paragraph at any time, at 
     the discretion of the Secretary, regardless of whether a 
     meeting is requested under subparagraph (A).
       (5) Financial penalty provisions.--
       (A) In general.--A Federal jurisdictional agency shall 
     complete any required approval or decision for the 
     environmental review process on an expeditious basis using 
     the shortest existing applicable process.
       (B) Failure to decide.--
       (i) In general.--

       (I) Transfer of funds.--If a Federal jurisdictional agency 
     fails to render a decision required under any Federal law 
     relating to a project study that requires the preparation of 
     an environmental impact statement or environmental 
     assessment, including the issuance or denial of a permit, 
     license, statement, opinion, or other approval by the date 
     described in clause (ii), the amount of funds made available 
     to support the office of the head of the Federal 
     jurisdictional agency shall be reduced by an amount of 
     funding equal to the amount specified in item (aa) or (bb) of 
     subclause (II), and those funds shall be made available to 
     the division of the Federal jurisdictional agency charged 
     with rendering the decision by not later than 1 day after the 
     applicable date under clause (ii), and once each week 
     thereafter until a final decision is rendered, subject to 
     subparagraph (C).
       (II) Amount to be transferred.--The amount referred to in 
     subclause (I) is--

       (aa) $20,000 for any project study requiring the 
     preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement; or
       (bb) $10,000 for any project study requiring any type of 
     review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) other than an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement.

[[Page 11757]]

       (ii) Description of date.--The date referred to in clause 
     (i) is the later of--

       (I) the date that is 180 days after the date on which an 
     application for the permit, license, or approval is complete; 
     and
       (II) the date that is 180 days after the date on which the 
     Federal lead agency issues a decision on the project under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.).

       (C) Limitations.--
       (i) In general.--No transfer of funds under subparagraph 
     (B) relating to an individual project study shall exceed, in 
     any fiscal year, an amount equal to 1 percent of the funds 
     made available for the applicable agency office.
       (ii) Failure to decide.--The total amount transferred in a 
     fiscal year as a result of a failure by an agency to make a 
     decision by an applicable deadline shall not exceed an amount 
     equal to 5 percent of the funds made available for the 
     applicable agency office for that fiscal year.
       (iii) Aggregate.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for each fiscal year, the aggregate amount of financial 
     penalties assessed against each applicable agency office 
     under this Act and any other Federal law as a result of a 
     failure of the agency to make a decision by an applicable 
     deadline for environmental review, including the total amount 
     transferred under this paragraph, shall not exceed an amount 
     equal to 9.5 percent of the funds made available for the 
     agency office for that fiscal year.
       (D) Notification of transfers.--Not later than 10 days 
     after the last date in a fiscal year on which funds of the 
     Federal jurisdictional agency may be transferred under 
     subparagraph (B)(5) with respect to an individual decision, 
     the agency shall submit to the appropriate committees of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate written notification 
     that includes a description of--
       (i) the decision;
       (ii) the project study involved;
       (iii) the amount of each transfer under subparagraph (B) in 
     that fiscal year relating to the decision;
       (iv) the total amount of all transfers under subparagraph 
     (B) in that fiscal year relating to the decision; and
       (v) the total amount of all transfers of the agency under 
     subparagraph (B) in that fiscal year.
       (E) No fault of agency.--
       (i) In general.--A transfer of funds under this paragraph 
     shall not be made if the applicable agency described in 
     subparagraph (A) notifies, with a supporting explanation, the 
     Federal lead agency, cooperating agencies, and project 
     sponsor, as applicable, that--

       (I) the agency has not received necessary information or 
     approvals from another entity in a manner that affects the 
     ability of the agency to meet any requirements under Federal, 
     State, or local law;
       (II) significant new information, including from public 
     comments, or circumstances, including a major modification to 
     an aspect of the project, requires additional analysis for 
     the agency to make a decision on the project application; or
       (III) the agency lacks the financial resources to complete 
     the review under the scheduled timeframe, including a 
     description of the number of full-time employees required to 
     complete the review, the amount of funding required to 
     complete the review, and a justification as to why not enough 
     funding is available to complete the review by the deadline.

       (ii) Lack of financial resources.--If the agency provides 
     notice under clause (i)(III), the Inspector General of the 
     agency shall--

       (I) conduct a financial audit to review the notice; and
       (II) not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     review described in subclause (I) is completed, submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate the results of the audit conducted 
     under subclause (I).

       (F) Limitation.--The Federal agency from which funds are 
     transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall not reprogram 
     funds to the office of the head of the agency, or equivalent 
     office, to reimburse that office for the loss of the funds.
       (G) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph affects 
     or limits the application of, or obligation to comply with, 
     any Federal, State, local, or tribal law.
       (j) Memorandum of Agreements for Early Coordination.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) the Secretary and other Federal agencies with relevant 
     jurisdiction in the environmental review process should 
     cooperate with each other, State and local agencies, and 
     Indian tribes on environmental review and Bureau of 
     Reclamation project delivery activities at the earliest 
     practicable time to avoid delays and duplication of effort 
     later in the process, prevent potential conflicts, and ensure 
     that planning and project development decisions reflect 
     environmental values; and
       (B) the cooperation referred to in subparagraph (A) should 
     include the development of policies and the designation of 
     staff that advise planning agencies and project sponsors of 
     studies or other information foreseeably required for later 
     Federal action and early consultation with appropriate State 
     and local agencies and Indian tribes.
       (2) Technical assistance.--If requested at any time by a 
     State or project sponsor, the Secretary and other Federal 
     agencies with relevant jurisdiction in the environmental 
     review process, shall, to the maximum extent practicable and 
     appropriate, as determined by the agencies, provide technical 
     assistance to the State or project sponsor in carrying out 
     early coordination activities.
       (3) Memorandum of agency agreement.--If requested at any 
     time by a State or project sponsor, the Federal lead agency, 
     in consultation with other Federal agencies with relevant 
     jurisdiction in the environmental review process, may 
     establish memoranda of agreement with the project sponsor, 
     Indian tribes, State and local governments, and other 
     appropriate entities to carry out the early coordination 
     activities, including providing technical assistance in 
     identifying potential impacts and mitigation issues in an 
     integrated fashion.
       (k) Limitations.--Nothing in this section preempts or 
     interferes with--
       (1) any obligation to comply with the provisions of any 
     Federal law, including--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (B) any other Federal environmental law;
       (2) the reviewability of any final Federal agency action in 
     a court of the United States or in the court of any State;
       (3) any requirement for seeking, considering, or responding 
     to public comment; or
       (4) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, duty, or 
     authority that a Federal, State, or local governmental 
     agency, Indian tribe, or project sponsor has with respect to 
     carrying out a project or any other provision of law 
     applicable to projects.
       (l) Timing of Claims.--
       (1) Timing.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial 
     review of a permit, license, or other approval issued by a 
     Federal agency for a project study shall be barred unless the 
     claim is filed not later than 3 years after publication of a 
     notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, 
     license, or other approval is final pursuant to the law under 
     which the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is 
     specified in the Federal law that allows judicial review.
       (B) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection creates a 
     right to judicial review or places any limit on filing a 
     claim that a person has violated the terms of a permit, 
     license, or other approval.
       (2) New information.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall consider new 
     information received after the close of a comment period if 
     the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement under title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (including successor regulations).
       (B) Separate action.--The preparation of a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement or other environmental 
     document, if required under this section, shall be considered 
     a separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a 
     claim for judicial review of the action shall be 3 years 
     after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal 
     Register announcing the action relating to such supplemental 
     environmental impact statement or other environmental 
     document.
       (m) Categorical Exclusions.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) survey the use by the Bureau of Reclamation of 
     categorical exclusions in projects since 2005;
       (B) publish a review of the survey that includes a 
     description of--
       (i) the types of actions that were categorically excluded 
     or could be the basis for developing a new categorical 
     exclusion; and
       (ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary for 
     new categorical exclusions; and
       (C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and 
     project sponsors for new categorical exclusions.
       (2) New categorical exclusions.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, if the Secretary has 
     identified a category of activities that merit establishing a 
     categorical exclusion that did not exist on the day before 
     the date of enactment this Act based on the review under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking to propose that new categorical 
     exclusion, to the extent that the categorical exclusion meets 
     the criteria for a categorical exclusion under section 1508.4 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulation).
       (n) Review of Project Acceleration Reforms.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall--
       (A) assess the reforms carried out under this section; and
       (B) not later than 5 years and not later than 10 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report that describes the results 
     of the assessment.
       (2) Contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall 
     include an evaluation of impacts of the reforms carried out 
     under this section on--
       (A) project delivery;
       (B) compliance with environmental laws; and
       (C) the environmental impact of projects.
       (o) Performance Measurement.--The Secretary shall establish 
     a program to measure and report on progress made toward 
     improving and

[[Page 11758]]

     expediting the planning and environmental review process.
       (p) Categorical Exclusions in Emergencies.--For the repair, 
     reconstruction, or rehabilitation of a Bureau of Reclamation 
     surface water storage project that is in operation or under 
     construction when damaged by an event or incident that 
     results in a declaration by the President of a major disaster 
     or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 
     the Secretary shall treat such repair, reconstruction, or 
     rehabilitation activity as a class of action categorically 
     excluded from the requirements relating to environmental 
     assessments or environmental impact statements under section 
     1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations), if the repair or reconstruction activity is--
       (1) in the same location with the same capacity, 
     dimensions, and design as the original Bureau of Reclamation 
     surface water storage project as before the declaration 
     described in this section; and
       (2) commenced within a 2-year period beginning on the date 
     of a declaration described in this subsection.

     SEC. 806. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate an 
     annual report, to be entitled ``Report to Congress on Future 
     Water Project Development'', that identifies the following:
       (1) Project reports.--Each project report that meets the 
     criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (2) Proposed project studies.--Any proposed project study 
     submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest pursuant 
     to subsection (b) that meets the criteria established in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (3) Proposed modifications.--Any proposed modification to 
     an authorized water project or project study that meets the 
     criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A) that--
       (A) is submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest 
     pursuant to subsection (b); or
       (B) is identified by the Secretary for authorization.
       (4) Expedited completion of report and determinations.--Any 
     project study that was expedited and any Secretarial 
     determinations under section 804.
       (b) Requests for Proposals.--
       (1) Publication.--Not later than May 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed 
     project studies and proposed modifications to authorized 
     projects and project studies to be included in the annual 
     report.
       (2) Deadline for requests.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each notice required by this subsection a requirement that 
     non-Federal interests submit to the Secretary any proposals 
     described in paragraph (1) by not later than 120 days after 
     the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register 
     in order for the proposals to be considered for inclusion in 
     the annual report.
       (3) Notification.--On the date of publication of each 
     notice required by this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) make the notice publicly available, including on the 
     Internet; and
       (B) provide written notification of the publication to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.
       (c) Contents.--
       (1) Project reports, proposed project studies, and proposed 
     modifications.--
       (A) Criteria for inclusion in report.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the annual report only those project reports, 
     proposed project studies, and proposed modifications to 
     authorized projects and project studies that--
       (i) are related to the missions and authorities of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation;
       (ii) require specific congressional authorization, 
     including by an Act of Congress;
       (iii) have not been congressionally authorized;
       (iv) have not been included in any previous annual report; 
     and
       (v) if authorized, could be carried out by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       (B) Description of benefits.--
       (i) Description.--The Secretary shall describe in the 
     annual report, to the extent applicable and practicable, for 
     each proposed project study and proposed modification to an 
     authorized water resources development project or project 
     study included in the annual report, the benefits, as 
     described in clause (ii), of each such study or proposed 
     modification.
       (ii) Benefits.--The benefits (or expected benefits, in the 
     case of a proposed project study) described in this clause 
     are benefits to--

       (I) the protection of human life and property;
       (II) improvement to domestic irrigated water and power 
     supplies;
       (III) the national economy;
       (IV) the environment; or
       (V) the national security interests of the United States.

       (C) Identification of other factors.--The Secretary shall 
     identify in the annual report, to the extent practicable--
       (i) for each proposed project study included in the annual 
     report, the non-Federal interest that submitted the proposed 
     project study pursuant to subsection (b); and
       (ii) for each proposed project study and proposed 
     modification to a project or project study included in the 
     annual report, whether the non-Federal interest has 
     demonstrated--

       (I) that local support exists for the proposed project 
     study or proposed modification to an authorized project or 
     project study (including the surface water storage 
     development project that is the subject of the proposed 
     feasibility study or the proposed modification to an 
     authorized project study); and
       (II) the financial ability to provide the required non-
     Federal cost share.

       (2) Transparency.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     annual report, for each project report, proposed project 
     study, and proposed modification to a project or project 
     study included under paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) the name of the associated non-Federal interest, 
     including the name of any non-Federal interest that has 
     contributed, or is expected to contribute, a non-Federal 
     share of the cost of--
       (i) the project report;
       (ii) the proposed project study;
       (iii) the authorized project study for which the 
     modification is proposed; or
       (iv) construction of--

       (I) the project that is the subject of--

       (aa) the water report;
       (bb) the proposed project study; or
       (cc) the authorized project study for which a modification 
     is proposed; or

       (II) the proposed modification to a project;

       (B) a letter or statement of support for the water report, 
     proposed project study, or proposed modification to a project 
     or project study from each associated non-Federal interest;
       (C) the purpose of the feasibility report, proposed 
     feasibility study, or proposed modification to a project or 
     project study;
       (D) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the Federal, 
     non-Federal, and total costs of--
       (i) the proposed modification to an authorized project 
     study; and
       (ii) construction of--

       (I) the project that is the subject of--

       (aa) the project report; or
       (bb) the authorized project study for which a modification 
     is proposed, with respect to the change in costs resulting 
     from such modification; or

       (II) the proposed modification to an authorized project; 
     and

       (E) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the monetary 
     and nonmonetary benefits of--
       (i) the project that is the subject of--

       (I) the project report; or
       (II) the authorized project study for which a modification 
     is proposed, with respect to the benefits of such 
     modification; or

       (ii) the proposed modification to an authorized project.
       (3) Certification.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     annual report a certification stating that each feasibility 
     report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification 
     to a project or project study included in the annual report 
     meets the criteria established in paragraph (1)(A).
       (4) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include in the annual 
     report an appendix listing the proposals submitted under 
     subsection (b) that were not included in the annual report 
     under paragraph (1)(A) and a description of why the Secretary 
     determined that those proposals did not meet the criteria for 
     inclusion under such paragraph.
       (d) Special Rule for Initial Annual Report.--
     Notwithstanding any other deadlines required by this section, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, publish in the Federal Register a notice required 
     by subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) include in such notice a requirement that non-Federal 
     interests submit to the Secretary any proposals described in 
     subsection (b)(1) by not later than 120 days after the date 
     of publication of such notice in the Federal Register in 
     order for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in 
     the first annual report developed by the Secretary under this 
     section.
       (e) Publication.--Upon submission of an annual report to 
     Congress, the Secretary shall make the annual report publicly 
     available, including through publication on the Internet.
       (f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``project 
     report'' means a final feasibility report developed under the 
     Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and all Acts 
     amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

  TITLE IX--ACCELERATED REVENUE, REPAYMENT, AND SURFACE WATER STORAGE 
                              ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Accelerated Revenue, 
     Repayment, and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 902. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN 
                   THE UNITED STATES AND CONTRACTORS OF FEDERALLY 
                   DEVELOPED WATER SUPPLIES.

       (a) Conversion and Prepayment of Contracts.--
       (1) Conversion.--Upon request of the contractor, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall convert any water service 
     contract in effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     between the United States and a water users' association to 
     allow for prepayment of the repayment contract pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) under mutually agreeable terms and conditions. 
     The manner of conversion under this paragraph shall be as 
     follows:
       (A) Water service contracts that were entered into under 
     section 9(e) of the Act of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to 
     be converted under this section shall be converted to 
     repayment contracts under section 9(d) of that Act (53 Stat. 
     1195).

[[Page 11759]]

       (B) Water service contracts that were entered under 
     subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of August 4, 1939 
     (53 Stat. 1194), to be converted under this section shall be 
     converted to a contract under subsection (c)(1) of section 9 
     of that Act (53 Stat. 1195).
       (2) Prepayment.--All repayment contracts under section 9(d) 
     of that Act (53 Stat. 1195) in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act at the request of the contractor, and 
     all contracts converted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall--
       (A) provide for the repayment, either in lump sum or by 
     accelerated prepayment, of the remaining construction costs 
     identified in water project specific irrigation rate 
     repayment schedules, as adjusted to reflect payment not 
     reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for 
     ultimate return by the contractor, or if made in 
     approximately equal installments, no later than 3 years after 
     the effective date of the repayment contract, such amount to 
     be discounted by \1/2\ the Treasury rate. An estimate of the 
     remaining construction costs, as adjusted, shall be provided 
     by the Secretary to the contractor no later than 90 days 
     following receipt of request of the contractor;
       (B) require that construction costs or other capitalized 
     costs incurred after the effective date of the contract or 
     not reflected in the rate schedule referenced in subparagraph 
     (A), and properly assignable to such contractor shall be 
     repaid in not more than 5 years after notification of the 
     allocation if such amount is a result of a collective annual 
     allocation of capital costs to the contractors exercising 
     contract conversation under this subsection of less than 
     $5,000,000. If such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such 
     cost shall be repaid as provided by applicable reclamation 
     law;
       (C) provide that power revenues will not be available to 
     aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to 
     irrigation under the contract; and
       (D) continue so long as the contractor pays applicable 
     charges, consistent with section 9(d) of the Act of August 4, 
     1939 (53 Stat. 1195), and applicable law.
       (3) Contract requirements.--The following shall apply with 
     regard to all repayment contracts under subsection (c)(1) of 
     section 9 of that Act (53 Stat. 1195) in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act at the request of the contractor, 
     and all contracts converted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B):
       (A) Provide for the repayment in lump sum of the remaining 
     construction costs identified in water project specific 
     municipal and industrial rate repayment schedules, as 
     adjusted to reflect payments not reflected in such schedule, 
     and properly assignable for ultimate return by the 
     contractor. An estimate of the remaining construction costs, 
     as adjusted, shall be provided by the Secretary to the 
     contractor no later than 90 days after receipt of request of 
     contractor.
       (B) The contract shall require that construction costs or 
     other capitalized costs incurred after the effective date of 
     the contract or not reflected in the rate schedule referenced 
     in subparagraph (A), and properly assignable to such 
     contractor, shall be repaid in not more than 5 years after 
     notification of the allocation if such amount is a result of 
     a collective annual allocation of capital costs to the 
     contractors exercising contract conversation under this 
     subsection of less than $5,000,000. If such amount is 
     $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be repaid as provided 
     by applicable reclamation law.
       (C) Continue so long as the contractor pays applicable 
     charges, consistent with section 9(c)(1) of the Act of August 
     4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1195), and applicable law.
       (4) Conditions.--All contracts entered into pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall--
       (A) not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment 
     financing used by the water users' association;
       (B) conform to any other agreements, such as applicable 
     settlement agreements and new constructed appurtenant 
     facilities; and
       (C) not modify other water service, repayment, exchange and 
     transfer contractual rights between the water users' 
     association, and the Bureau of Reclamation, or any rights, 
     obligations, or relationships of the water users' association 
     and their landowners as provided under State law.
       (b) Accounting.--The amounts paid pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to adjustment following a final cost 
     allocation by the Secretary of the Interior. In the event 
     that the final cost allocation indicates that the costs 
     properly assignable to the contractor are greater than what 
     has been paid by the contractor, the contractor shall be 
     obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The term of 
     such additional repayment contract shall be not less than one 
     year and not more than 10 years, however, mutually agreeable 
     provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such amount may 
     be developed by the parties. In the event that the final cost 
     allocation indicates that the costs properly assignable to 
     the contractor are less than what the contractor has paid, 
     the Secretary shall credit such overpayment as an offset 
     against any outstanding or future obligation of the 
     contractor.
       (c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) Effect of existing law.--Upon a contractor's compliance 
     with and discharge of the obligation of repayment of the 
     construction costs pursuant to a contract entered into 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(A), subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 
     1269) shall apply to affected lands.
       (2) Effect of other obligations.--The obligation of a 
     contractor to repay construction costs or other capitalized 
     costs described in subsection (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B), or (b) 
     shall not affect a contractor's status as having repaid all 
     of the construction costs assignable to the contractor or the 
     applicability of subsections (a) and (b) of section 213 of 
     the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1269) once the 
     amount required to be paid by the contractor under the 
     repayment contract entered into pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(2)(A) have been paid.
       (d) Effect on Existing Law Not Altered.--Implementation of 
     the provisions of this title shall not alter--
       (1) the repayment obligation of any water service or 
     repayment contractor receiving water from the same water 
     project, or shift any costs that would otherwise have been 
     properly assignable to the water users' association 
     identified in subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) absent 
     this section, including operation and maintenance costs, 
     construction costs, or other capitalized costs incurred after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, or to other 
     contractors; and
       (2) specific requirements for the disposition of amounts 
     received as repayments by the Secretary under the Act of June 
     17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental 
     to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
       (e) Surface Water Storage Enhancement Program.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), 
     three years following the date of enactment of this Act, 50 
     percent of receipts generated from prepayment of contracts 
     under this section beyond amounts necessary to cover the 
     amount of receipts forgone from scheduled payments under 
     current law for the 10-year period following the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be directed to the Reclamation 
     Surface Water Storage Account under paragraph (2).
       (2) Surface storage account.--The Secretary shall allocate 
     amounts collected under paragraph (1) into the ``Reclamation 
     Surface Storage Account'' to fund the construction of surface 
     water storage. The Secretary may also enter into cooperative 
     agreements with water users' associations for the 
     construction of surface water storage and amounts within the 
     Surface Storage Account may be used to fund such 
     construction. Surface water storage projects that are 
     otherwise not federally authorized shall not be considered 
     Federal facilities as a result of any amounts allocated from 
     the Surface Storage Account for part or all of such 
     facilities.
       (3) Repayment.--Amounts used for surface water storage 
     construction from the Account shall be fully reimbursed to 
     the Account consistent with the requirements under Federal 
     reclamation law (the law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 
     388, chapter 1093))), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory 
     of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) except that all funds 
     reimbursed shall be deposited in the Account established 
     under paragraph (2).
       (4) Availability of amounts.--Amounts deposited in the 
     Account under this subsection shall--
       (A) be made available in accordance with this section, 
     subject to appropriation; and
       (B) be in addition to amounts appropriated for such 
     purposes under any other provision of law.
       (5) Purposes of surface water storage.--Construction of 
     surface water storage under this section shall be made for 
     the following purposes:
       (A) Increased municipal and industrial water supply.
       (B) Agricultural floodwater, erosion, and sedimentation 
     reduction.
       (C) Agricultural drainage improvements.
       (D) Agricultural irrigation.
       (E) Increased recreation opportunities.
       (F) Reduced adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from water 
     storage or diversion projects within watersheds associated 
     with water storage projects funded under this section.
       (G) Any other purposes consistent with reclamation laws or 
     other Federal law.
       (f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the 
     following definitions apply:
       (1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Reclamation 
     Surface Water Storage Account established under subsection 
     (e)(2).
       (2) Construction.--The term ``construction'' means the 
     designing, materials engineering and testing, surveying, and 
     building of surface water storage including additions to 
     existing surface water storage and construction of new 
     surface water storage facilities, exclusive of any Federal 
     statutory or regulatory obligations relating to any permit, 
     review, approval, or other such requirement.
       (3) Surface water storage.--The term ``surface water 
     storage'' means any federally owned facility under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation or any non-Federal 
     facility used for the surface storage and supply of water 
     resources.
       (4) Treasury rate.--The term ``Treasury rate'' means the 
     20-year Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT) rate published by 
     the United States Department of the Treasury existing on the 
     effective date of the contract.
       (5) Water users' association.--The term ``water users' 
     association'' means--
       (A) an entity organized and recognized under State laws 
     that is eligible to enter into contracts with reclamation to 
     receive contract water for delivery to and users of the water 
     and to pay applicable charges; and
       (B) includes a variety of entities with different names and 
     differing functions, such as associations, conservatory 
     district, irrigation district, municipality, and water 
     project contract unit.

                        TITLE X--SAFETY OF DAMS

     SEC. 1001. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS.

       The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 is amended--

[[Page 11760]]

       (1) in section 3, by striking ``Construction'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 5B, construction''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after section 5A (43 U.S.C. 509) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 5B. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS.

       ``Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary determines 
     that additional project benefits, including but not limited 
     to additional conservation storage capacity, are feasible and 
     not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary 
     is authorized to develop additional project benefits through 
     the construction of new or supplementary works on a project 
     in conjunction with the Secretary's activities under section 
     2 of this Act and subject to the conditions described in the 
     feasibility study, provided--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines that developing additional 
     project benefits through the construction of new or 
     supplementary works on a project will promote more efficient 
     management of water and water-related facilities;
       ``(2) the feasibility study pertaining to additional 
     project benefits has been authorized pursuant to section 8 of 
     the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
     4601-18); and
       ``(3) the costs associated with developing the additional 
     project benefits are agreed to in writing between the 
     Secretary and project proponents and shall be allocated to 
     the authorized purposes of the structure and repaid 
     consistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation law 
     (the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) and Acts 
     supplemental to and amendatory of that Act.''.

                   TITLE XI--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION

     SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Water Rights Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 1102. DEFINITION OF WATER RIGHT.

       In this title, the term ``water right'' means any surface 
     or groundwater right filed, permitted, certified, confirmed, 
     decreed, adjudicated, or otherwise recognized by a judicial 
     proceeding or by the State in which the user acquires 
     possession of the water or puts the water to beneficial use, 
     including water rights for federally recognized Indian 
     tribes.

     SEC. 1103. TREATMENT OF WATER RIGHTS.

       The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not--
       (1) condition or withhold, in whole or in part, the 
     issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension of any permit, 
     approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, 
     or other land use or occupancy agreement on--
       (A) limitation or encumbrance of any water right, or the 
     transfer of any water right (including joint and sole 
     ownership), directly or indirectly to the United States or 
     any other designee; or
       (B) any other impairment of any water right, in whole or in 
     part, granted or otherwise recognized under State law, by 
     Federal or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, or 
     pursuant to any interstate water compact;
       (2) require any water user (including any federally 
     recognized Indian tribe) to apply for or acquire a water 
     right in the name of the United States under State law as a 
     condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension 
     of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, 
     right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement;
       (3) assert jurisdiction over groundwater withdrawals or 
     impacts on groundwater resources, unless jurisdiction is 
     asserted, and any regulatory or policy actions taken pursuant 
     to such assertion are, consistent with, and impose no greater 
     restrictions or regulatory requirements than, applicable 
     State laws (including regulations) and policies governing the 
     protection and use of groundwater resources; or
       (4) infringe on the rights and obligations of a State in 
     evaluating, allocating, and adjudicating the waters of the 
     State originating on or under, or flowing from, land owned or 
     managed by the Federal Government.

     SEC. 1104. RECOGNITION OF STATE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out section 1103, the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall--
       (1) recognize the longstanding authority of the States 
     relating to evaluating, protecting, allocating, regulating, 
     and adjudicating groundwater by any means, including a 
     rulemaking, permitting, directive, water court adjudication, 
     resource management planning, regional authority, or other 
     policy; and
       (2) coordinate with the States in the adoption and 
     implementation by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture of any rulemaking, policy, 
     directive, management plan, or other similar Federal action 
     so as to ensure that such actions are consistent with, and 
     impose no greater restrictions or regulatory requirements 
     than, State groundwater laws and programs.
       (b) Effect on State Water Rights.--In carrying out this 
     title, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not take any action that adversely 
     affects--
       (1) any water rights granted by a State;
       (2) the authority of a State in adjudicating water rights;
       (3) definitions established by a State with respect to the 
     term ``beneficial use'', ``priority of water rights'', or 
     ``terms of use'';
       (4) terms and conditions of groundwater withdrawal, 
     guidance and reporting procedures, and conservation and 
     source protection measures established by a State;
       (5) the use of groundwater in accordance with State law; or
       (6) any other rights and obligations of a State established 
     under State law.

     SEC. 1105. EFFECT OF TITLE.

       (a) Effect on Existing Authority.--Nothing in this title 
     limits or expands any existing legally recognized authority 
     of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to issue, grant, or condition any permit, 
     approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, 
     or other land use or occupancy agreement on Federal land 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior 
     or the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively.
       (b) Effect on Reclamation Contracts.--Nothing in this title 
     interferes with Bureau of Reclamation contracts entered into 
     pursuant to the reclamation laws.
       (c) Effect on Endangered Species Act.--Nothing in this 
     title affects the implementation of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (d) Effect on Federal Reserved Water Rights.--Nothing in 
     this title limits or expands any existing or claimed reserved 
     water rights of the Federal Government on land administered 
     by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       (e) Effect on Federal Power Act.--Nothing in this title 
     limits or expands authorities under sections 4(e), 10(j), or 
     18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e), 803(j), 811).
       (f) Effect on Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title 
     limits or expands any water right or treaty right of any 
     federally recognized Indian tribe.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
204. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In the table of contents, in the matter regarding section 
     204, strike ``calfed'' and insert ``CALFED''.
       Page 155, line 19, strike ``All repayment contracts'' and 
     insert ``Except for those repayment contracts under which the 
     contractor has previously negotiated for prepayment, all 
     repayment contracts''.
       Page 157, line 11, strike ``The following'' and insert 
     ``Except for those repayment contracts under which the 
     contractor has previously negotiated for prepayment, the 
     following''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes one technical 
change to the bill by capitalizing an acronym in the table of contents 
and makes one clarifying change to title IX by ensuring that those who 
have already negotiated prepayments of their debt to the U.S. Treasury 
are not impacted by provisions in that title.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not oppose this technical 
amendment to the bill, but I do want to point out that fixing typos and 
realphabetizing indexes and other technical changes do not fix the much 
deeper problems with this bill and do not change the reality that it is 
not going to become law because it has deep substantive problems that 
need to be addressed.

[[Page 11761]]

  That is why it is so widely opposed, as it has been in prior years, 
when essentially the same bill has been run through on party lines.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. 
Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, while this amendment does make technical changes that 
were agreed upon in committee, it speaks to, I think, a much larger 
question, which is the debate we have been having here, and that is: Is 
this, in fact, a work in progress? I submit that it is.
  Obviously, this legislation would not be signed into law under its 
current form, and I think many of those who are supporting the 
legislation understand that; but we understand that, in fact, there is 
a crisis, a drought affecting every region of California.
  For those of us who feel very strongly about trying to maintain a 
strong agricultural economy, we know we have to work together. The fact 
is California produces half--half--of the Nation's fruits and 
vegetables, and these are 300 commodities that are so important to not 
only America's food supply but to a good healthy diet and to ensure 
that, in fact, we can compete around the world as it relates to 
ensuring that America remains independent in producing its own food.
  There is a lot at stake here. We need to work together as this 
process goes along. We will have serious areas of disagreement, but 
that doesn't mean we can't continue to work together.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close when the 
gentleman is finished.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, we don't oppose this technical 
amendment, but we wish that there were substantive amendments that 
might address some of the deep flaws that have prevented this bill from 
having any chance of becoming law in prior years and will again this 
year.
  I will just close by quoting from the Los Angeles Times. It states:

       A competing Democratic bill, H.R. 2983 by Representative 
     Jared Huffman, has some areas of overlap. Like the Valadao 
     bill, it reasonably calls on the Federal Government to 
     accelerate feasibility studies for a number of proposed dams 
     that have been stuck for years in the planning phase. 
     Republicans, of course, have faith that the dams will pencil 
     out and will be funded. Many Democrats are convinced that the 
     yield numbers--the amount of additional water that would be 
     stored and the associated dollar cost--would be so paltry as 
     to finally put an end to the discussion.
       In other areas, though, the Huffman bill is starkly 
     different and, frankly, much smarter, focusing on updating 
     Federal water policies and practices that today are firmly 
     rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge and 
     technology.

  There is a lot we could be working on together substantively. We 
certainly have no problem with the technical changes here, but it is 
high time that we have hearings and serious deliberations and 
discussions about substance. If we do that, we might just find that 
there are some common solutions that could become law.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my colleague 
that, in the 112th Congress, this bill went through one of the most 
exhaustive public processes of any bill heard by Congress.
  Its genesis was in two public hearings in the Central Valley in 2010 
and 2011. It was vetted through not one, but two public hearings in 
Washington in which minority Democrats called twice as many witnesses 
as majority Republicans.
  On the House floor, every Democratic amendment was made in order and 
considered. In fact, over the past 5 years, we have held 18 hearings on 
various versions of this bill. We consulted 60 water agencies 
throughout northern and central California, including many in 
Democratic districts.
  The bill was taken up again in the 113th Congress and redebated. This 
time, extensive negotiations took place between House and Senate 
Members. The fact is there are few issues in this Congress that have 
been more thoroughly debated than those encompassed in this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 39, line 10, after ``water weed,'' insert ``water 
     hyacinth,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and 
straightforward but addresses a critical issue affecting the economy, 
the environment, and the health of the delta as well as other regions 
throughout the State.
  This amendment adds water hyacinth to the list of invasive species to 
be considered for a pilot project established by the bill. The water 
hyacinth is an extremely invasive weed that has taken over the delta.
  Take a look at the picture. This channel is completely blocked over 
by the weed. It can double in size every 10 days. It has seeds that 
remain buried in sediment and remain viable for 20 years. It is 
difficult to remove mechanically and to manage through pesticides.
  The result is what you see here in this picture. It clogs waterways, 
preventing the movement of water through the delta. It negatively 
affects farmers, recreational opportunities, and disrupts the national 
ecosystem. These effects have only been worsened by the drought.
  I represent the Port of Stockton. This is the third largest inland 
port in the Nation. The hyacinth affects traffic in and out of the 
port, preventing navigation of the channels at night because of ships 
that can't navigate between the weeds, the levees, and smaller vessels.
  This causes unreasonable delays and costs importers approximately 
$200,000 in additional expenses per year. Last year alone, the port had 
to remove more than 2 million tons of the plants. Even Stockton's 
Christmas lighted boat parade had to be canceled for the first time in 
its 35-year history.
  Eradicating this invasive species will take a holistic approach, 
involving stakeholders at all levels. I have heard from the marina 
owners, farmers, environmental organizations, and local communities on 
how the water hyacinth continues to impact their lives on a daily 
basis.
  I was fortunate enough to help secure $1 million in Federal funding 
to help an existing effort between Federal, State, and local partners 
focused on managing the water hyacinth infestation, but these efforts 
are just the beginning. This amendment ensures that we continue 
building off the current work.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. DeSaulnier, 
and Mr. Costa, for joining me on this amendment. I urge its adoption.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my 
colleague.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the delta.
  This is but one small example of what we ought to be doing, and that 
is working together to solve very, very complex problems. 
Unfortunately, the underlying legislation really is not the result of 
the kind of interaction that is necessary.
  Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta. That delta is as large as the 
Westlands Water District, and it also happens to be the largest estuary 
on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. It is 
absolutely an essential element in the environment of the entire West 
Coast of the United States; yet the underlying legislation ignores the 
fact that those of us who represent this area have been no part of the 
legislation.
  If we work together, we can solve problems such as water hyacinth and

[[Page 11762]]

the next amendment, which I will be taking up. I want to commend Mr. 
McNerney for putting forth this amendment and hopefully beginning the 
interaction necessary to develop a proper water bill for all 
California.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. McNERNEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney) for offering this amendment.
  Water hyacinth is a significant problem that has impacted the 
operations of both the Central Valley water project as well as the 
State Water Project.
  This year, as a result of water hyacinth infestation, pumping at the 
Jones Pumping Plant was reduced significantly for periods of time that 
resulted in the loss of water. Local water contractors responded in a 
collaborative manner to help remove that infestation that we see there, 
over 89,000 cubic yards of hyacinth at a cost of almost $2 million to 
remove it to try to get the operations to continue.
  Luckily, the capacity at the State pump, Banks pump, provided an 
opportunity to make up the difference. However, we may not be so lucky 
in the future.
  So I want to support this amendment. It impacts not just cities, 
boaters, and recreationalists, but farmers and the entire region. This 
is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, represent San Joaquin County, along 
with Representative McNerney, and believe that this is a solution to a 
big problem that we share within the delta.
  This native species is something that needs to be managed and is a 
welcome amendment to this bill. This amendment rightly focuses on the 
invasive plant that can have devastating impacts on fish and other 
organisms in the delta.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 48, after line 19, insert the following:
       (4) collaborate with the California Department of Water 
     Resources to install a fish screen at the Delta Cross Channel 
     Gates in coordination with operations to protect migrating 
     smelt and salmonids;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the previous 
amendment, is simple but very important.
  We heard the discussion from Mr. McNerney and supporters of his 
amendment about the water hyacinth and the endangered species that have 
plagued not just the California delta, but other parts of the West.
  It is important. This amendment is also a small but important 
amendment. It deals with a way of providing a fish screen on the Delta 
Cross Channel, a very important element in the California water system. 
Why this hasn't been done before, I don't know.
  I live within a mile of the Delta Cross Channel, and I have often 
wondered why the agencies have not pursued a fish screen. They have to 
close the channel gates when the fish are in the river, thereby 
providing less water through the delta. So this would simply move it 
along.
  These two amendments are an example of what we ought to be doing.
  Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta, which is 700,000 acres, equal 
in size to the area that is the principal proponent of the underlying 
legislation, that is the Westlands Water District. Both are important 
and critical agriculture areas, both of which need water.
  The underlying legislation ignores the environmental needs and the 
agricultural needs of the delta, and in a very complex way provides a 
mechanism to take water out of the delta without regard to either the 
environmental or the agricultural or the community needs in the area.
  It is not going to pass. It should never become law. It is an example 
of how not to solve California water problems. The way you solve 
California water problems are with amendments such as Mr. McNerney's or 
this amendment that I am putting forth and serious discussions between 
those of us who represent the delta.
  I would also like to point out to my colleagues who are proponents of 
this bill that I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, from the 
very end of it--that is at San Francisco Bay--to an area 199.6 miles 
upriver, including virtually all of the rice industry of California, of 
which there are some 600,000 acres, and nearly half of that acreage is 
fallow this year.
  So the drought isn't just about the impact on the San Joaquin Valley 
system, of which we have heard much debate this morning. It is also 
about the Sacramento Valley north of the delta, where the drought has 
had a major impact.
  California needs to work together in the immediate situation, which 
it is actually doing. The Federal and State governments' water policy 
through the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, 
the Fish and Wildlife Agency--both the State and Federal Government 
have done yeoman's work, extraordinary work, stretching the water 
supplies of California. This bill would override that effort and make 
it impossible for them to continue.
  God help us if the drought goes another year--it could--in which case 
this bill, if it would become law, all that has been done in California 
over this last 3 years to stretch the water supplies would be pushed 
aside.
  We shouldn't do it that way. We should be working together. Mr. 
Huffman has a good piece of legislation that has already achieved 
statewide support from water contractors, from those who understand the 
intricacies of this system. We can do it if we sat down together. And 
that has not happened.
  For those of us who represent the delta and north of the delta, we 
find this to be objectionable and we find it to be rather foolish. 
There is a middle ground. But don't, as this bill does, push aside the 
environmental laws, which are the only protections for the largest 
estuary system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Don't do 
that.
  Why would you destroy the salmon fisheries? Why would you destroy 
700,000 acres and the water supplies for the Bay area? You shouldn't do 
that. You don't need to do that.
  There are rational and reasonable ways to solve the California water 
problem. Some of it is in this bill. The storage systems are good, well 
done, but don't do that in a way that pushes aside the environmental 
protections that provide the balance not just for the environment, but 
for the communities that are affected. Don't do that. We can work 
together. Just give us a chance to do so, which you have not thus far 
done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California talks about

[[Page 11763]]

a bill that he is not willing to support, but yet he wants to amend a 
bill that he says is going nowhere.
  The truth is the bill is going somewhere. This bill is going to move 
off this floor and move into the Senate. It is time for the Senate to 
show some action. It is time for the two bodies to actually do what 
they are supposed to do and work together to find a solution for 
California.
  To do nothing is criminal. To do nothing will put farms out of 
business, will create much higher unemployment than seen anywhere else 
in the country, and will devastate a food supply that feeds the rest of 
the Nation and much of the world.
  Now this amendment in particular has some problems. In conversations 
with the Bureau of Reclamation, they have not asked for this project 
and they have no money identified for the project. I am unaware of the 
State of California's position as well.
  Fish screens are hugely expensive projects. They are subject to 
destruction under high flow events due to debris and restrict 
recreation.
  I am concerned that this project is not even feasible. What this 
project aims to do is make sure that water is not transferred south of 
the delta. What many of my friends forget is, as I represent San 
Joaquin County, Mountain House, a community--not just farmland--that 
gets a zero allocation, is south of the delta. It actually exports 
water. So does Tracy, Manteca, Ripon, Escalon, areas in San Joaquin 
that I represent that are south of the delta.
  This is not an us against them fight. This is a fight for the 
survival of California. And it is not just about an emergency transfer 
of water. It is about the future of California. Do we want to have 
enough water for all of our residents? Do we want our number one 
industry, agriculture, to be a vibrant industry?
  We have the opportunity to have greater storage. And we ought to have 
some commonsense solutions in the process. You talk about wanting to 
save fish? Why not get rid of the predator fish, or at least go out and 
harvest some of them so they are not eating 98 percent of the fish that 
you say you are trying to help?
  There are commonsense solutions in here that will allow us to have 
greater flexibility, greater storage, and a better plan for the future 
of California. We should not be wasting water and just allowing 
freshwater to get pushed arbitrarily out to the ocean.
  This is sound environmental policy that will help us in the future 
and gives us a negotiating point with the Senate, Republicans and 
Democrats actually working together, for a solution that helps us in 
California.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 65, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the following 
     (and redesignate the subsequent provisions accordingly):
       (2) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (i)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2016;
       (3) complete a publicly available draft of the feasibility 
     study described in clause (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of 
     Public Law 108-361 and submit such study to the appropriate 
     committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 
     later than November 30, 2016;
       (4) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2017;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
my neighbor to the north, Mr. Walden, which will protect due process 
for water contractors of the Bureau of Reclamation-operated Klamath 
Project in California and Oregon.
  The amendment confers applicant status on these contractors, ensuring 
that they are included in Endangered Species Act consultations that 
could affect operations of the water projects they rely upon. Applicant 
status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided 
by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau considers ESA-
related operational changes.
  While the Bureau has, in its own words, treated the contractors in a 
manner similar to applicants since the 1990s, and local Indian tribes 
have invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not 
granted them the protections and inputs the full applicant status would 
provide, which is why we need the bill.
  H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally 
operated Central Valley Project in California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. I believe the gentleman has two amendments today.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Yes. This first amendment is on the Klamath Project.
  Are the amendments out of order? They are out of numerical order.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on the Sites Reservoir. This 
helps complete a surface water storage project feasibility study by 
aligning the bill's language with the MOU recently signed by the Bureau 
of Reclamation and project stakeholders.

                              {time}  1100

  Sites Reservoir has been studied for decades, but stakeholders 
recently agreed to help fund the study's completion. Last year, 
California's voters authorized billions in funding for projects like 
Sites, but the State cannot determine which projects to invest in until 
the feasibility studies are complete.
  This is a key project to help the State prepare for future droughts, 
and the State Department of Water Resources found that it would 
generate an additional 900,000 acre-feet of water during drought years. 
That is enough for 7.2 million people per year.
  This noncontroversial amendment helps to allow Californians to invest 
in their own water infrastructure, which is a laudable goal that I 
think we should all support.
  I have been pleased to sponsor a bill with my colleague, Mr. 
Garamendi, aimed at advancing this project, and I hope I will have your 
support today on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition, though I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleague mentioned, this amendment updates the 
bill to be consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the Sites Joint Powers Authority.
  As has been noted by speakers on both sides, California last year 
came together, in a bipartisan, overwhelming way, to provide $7.5 
billion

[[Page 11764]]

for improving our water system to provide more funding for the tools in 
our water toolbox to provide greater reliability throughout California; 
$2.7 billion of that water bond measure was set aside for water storage 
projects. This is one of the projects that can participate in that 
funding.
  I support this effort because increased storage capacity--both 
surface, as well as groundwater recharge--is absolutely necessary to 
provide the additional resiliency and reliability in California's water 
system.
  I support the construction of Sites Reservoir, working in conjunction 
with increasing the supply of Shasta Reservoir, by increasing that dam, 
would provide additional water supply, as well as Temperance Flat, as 
well as the expansion of Los Vaqueros, which is underway by the Contra 
Costa Water District, as well as the expansion of San Luis Reservoir, 
which is allowed for in this legislation, as well as increased 
groundwater banking. All of these are part of the solution.
  We must expand the storage in the State to reduce the impacts of 
future droughts and the population growth; therefore, I support this 
amendment.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a technical measure to help 
align the language in H.R. 2898 with the MOU, memorandum of 
understanding, that the Bureau of Reclamation has put forward so that 
we can expedite the studies for the Sites Reservoir project, one that 
we have needed for a long, long time and will be very helpful towards 
water solutions for California.
  I ask for the support of this very simple technical measure, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply aligns the bill with 
the recently signed MOU with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding these 
studies. We do not oppose it. It is consistent with an earlier policy 
rider added to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  Contrary to some of the things we have heard in this debate, I and 
other Democrats are not standing in the way of these storage studies. 
The delta smelt and the environmental laws are not standing in the way 
of these storage studies.
  In fact, my own drought bill, H.R. 2983, provides crucial funding and 
direction to the Bureau of Reclamation to finish CALFED feasibility 
studies that have the financing possible to be completed within the 
next 10 years.
  We do support finishing these studies. Now, some of these projects 
may pencil out, but I think it has become clear over the many, many 
years these studies have languished that some of these projects have 
turned into zombie reservoirs which won't go away because project 
proponents have never been forced to fully account for how their 
financing will actually work.
  Many of these projects will not pencil out, but it is high time that 
we complete the studies, face the reality, and get the information so 
that we can move on with real water solutions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Calvert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 81, line 3, strike ``3'' and insert ``2''.
       Page 81, line 12, strike ``and''.
       Page 81, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 81, after line 15, insert the following:
       ``(vi) 1 member shall be a representative of a wildlife 
     entity that primarily focuses on waterfowl.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Calvert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 2898, we establish an oversight board for the 
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
  What my amendment does is simple. It adds an additional conservation 
seat to the 11-member board, which will provide parity between the 
environmental and user group interests.
  The advisory board reflects the interests of agriculture, municipal 
and industrial users, power contractors, wildlife refuges, in addition 
to the economic impacts of water operations, so that the Secretary of 
the Interior will receive recommendations that encompass a broad 
perspective.
  The reason for my amendment is also simple, to ensure that a more 
balanced and effective approach is being taken as the Secretary of the 
Interior prioritizes spending levels on projects and programs carried 
out through the restoration fund.
  Again, in closing, my amendment strikes a better balance between 
conservation and user groups interests on the 11-member board and will 
help to ensure that the annual surcharges water and power users 
contribute will be spent on the most effective methods in habitat 
restoration and environmental mitigation.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and commend the 
author for offering it.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the author for his concern 
about waterfowl and wildlife. This amendment, by itself, is not 
harmful, but it is important to acknowledge that it doesn't come close 
to curing the problems with this bill that are, in fact, very harmful 
to fish and wildlife.
  The gentleman's amendment seeks to provide cover in some ways to 
proponents of this bill who are now coming under fire from the 
California Waterfowl Association and other sportsmen's groups because 
this bill hurts migratory birds and other wildlife and waterfowl.
  The California Waterfowl Association is on record opposing this bill 
because: ``It would eliminate water supplies for California migratory 
waterfowl and other wetlands-dependent species.''
  Other sportsmen's groups also oppose. Trout Unlimited has spoken out 
against the bill because it would weaken protections for steelhead and 
salmon.
  While I do not oppose this bill, it is important not to suggest that 
this bill is somehow good for or supported by hunters or sportsmen's 
groups. It is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very legitimate concern that my colleagues 
are dealing with in terms of how funds are being spent by the 
restoration programs and how we provide support for the efforts to 
provide more accountability and improve the transparency of the 
expenditures of the fund.
  I appreciate and support my colleague's amendment to improve the 
makeup of the advisory board, which I think is important. However, I 
think that adding one more waterfowl representative needs to be done to 
try to provide additional balance in terms of the representation of the 
various interests on the board.
  Let me finally say I represent Grasslands, a large part of Grasslands 
district, which is the largest part of the Pacific Flyway in terms of 
almost 200,000 acres of contiguous wetlands, and they have raised some 
issues as relates to this legislation, and we are going to work those 
out because, in fact, that is a very important part of the Pacific 
Flyway.

[[Page 11765]]

  In addition to that, the flexibility that we create in the underlying 
bill really is, in part, to ensure that we do provide water, even the 
limited water available, so that we can maintain this important 
habitat.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. It 
is a simple amendment. This is a process, as my friend from California 
has mentioned. After we move this bill forward today, we will have the 
opportunity, hopefully, to conference with the Senate. Hopefully, they 
can pass a bill in the Senate, and we can do something good for the 
State of California.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Costa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise for an amendment that is before the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 92, after line 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 611. REPORT ON RESULTS OF WATER USAGE.

       The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Natural Resources 
     of the State of California, shall publish an annual report 
     detailing instream flow releases from the Central Valley 
     Project and California State Water Project, their explicit 
     purpose and authority, and all measured environmental benefit 
     as a result of the releases.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, and the ranking member, since the early 1990s, 
the Federal and State lawmakers and regulators have made a number of 
policy choices to implement the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water 
Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. All of these have 
had good intentions.
  From the Trinity River, to the Shasta Reservoir, to the San Francisco 
Bay Delta, and up to the San Joaquin River, about 3.5 million acre-feet 
of Central Valley Project and California State Water Project have been 
as a result of those acts rededicated for environmental management 
purposes.
  The Central Valley Project Improvement Act alone, since its 
enactment, has resulted in over 17 million acre-feet of water being 
reprioritized for different needs and for different purposes.
  It is important to note that this doesn't mean that the water, in 
reprioritization, doesn't continue to serve multiple purposes within 
the system because it does; but it does mean that the use has been 
prioritized so that, in fact, it must meet environmental objectives 
over that of human needs, which are a distant second to the 
environmental uses of this water as a result of the passage of those 
previous acts.
  These changes, I believe, have harmed a large number of Californians, 
including those from small, rural, and often disadvantaged communities 
that I represent, as well as to the larger areas that are dependent 
upon this water supply, whether we talk about Santa Clara in Silicon 
Valley or Los Angeles, in the metropolitan water district.
  Approximately 25 million people and 7 of the Nation's top 10 
agricultural counties have seen their water supply diminish and their 
water cost escalate over the last 20 years; that is a fact, and as my 
colleagues say, facts are hard to dispute. The increased cost has been 
there, and the reduction of the water supply is, in fact, a result of 
this.
  Many of the farmers I serve have seen their water supplies diminish 
to 40 percent--40 percent--of their long-term average and have received 
no surface water--no surface water--for the last 2 years.
  Communities that I have represented have had their drinking wells go 
dry, leaving entire towns without a water supply for drinking or 
bathing. These are incredibly harmful impacts to a very simple 
question.
  We ought to know the benefits. Has society benefited from the policy 
changes to dedicate the water for these important environmental 
purposes, like preventing the extinction of species, which none of us 
want to do?
  The answer, I am sad to say, is it seems to have had not the impact 
that was intended because the species continue to decline.
  Unfortunately, though, notwithstanding efforts within the Federal 
agencies, the State agencies, and the National Academy of Sciences, we 
don't really know. We don't really know because we don't have an 
accurate reporting or accounting of how end-stream flows are used and 
what benefit is expected to be achieved by them and whether the benefit 
was achieved by those flows.

                              {time}  1115

  I would certainly feel a little better knowing that we are increasing 
the species, the salmonoid in California, notwithstanding the loss of 
water. In fact, the salmonoid have continued to decline.
  The dedication of millions of acre-feet of water and the expenditure 
of billions of dollars has resulted in a water supply situation that 
has never been worse for all of California. Likewise, the condition of 
the species to which we have dedicated so much has never been so much 
at risk.
  The latest delta smelt population index is zero, and the status of 
protected salmon is in serious doubt. While the extinction of these 
species isn't probable, given the hatchery-based fish populations, the 
potential loss of wild populations is of grave concern to all of us.
  One thing that the drought has achieved to make operational 
priorities of the project abundantly clear is that the first priority 
of the projects, besides this cosharing, is flood control. God, I would 
pray that it would flood in California. I would love to have what they 
are having in Texas.
  The second priority is followed by salmon temperature management, 
which is very problematic right now as a result of this drought. This 
is followed by protecting the bay-delta water quality--people ought to 
have good water quality; I want my friends in the bay area to drink 
good, fresh water--and, finally, any possible deliveries to the 
communities for the refuge wildlife, which I spoke to a moment ago, 
that includes grasslands and other refuges, as well as our farms, our 
farms that produce the food.
  I am introducing this amendment to create at least some 
accountability and transparency in the environmental management efforts 
underway so that we can better understand and so we can measure what is 
working and what isn't working. That is why this amendment is 
important.
  I ask that it be adopted for all the reasons that I have stated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have another amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 92, line 20, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 611. KLAMATH PROJECT CONSULTATION APPLICANTS.

       If the Bureau of Reclamation initiates or reinitiates 
     consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7(a)(2) of 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), 
     with respect to construction or operation of the Klamath 
     Project (or any part thereof), Klamath Project contractors 
     shall be accorded all the rights and responsibilities 
     extended to applicants in the consultation process. Upon 
     request of the Klamath Project contractors, they may be 
     represented through an association or organization.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman

[[Page 11766]]

from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, this is the much anticipated amendment 
having to do with the Klamath project that I am offering with my 
neighbor, Mr. Walden, from the north side of the border.
  The amendment again confers applicant status on those contractors 
that are involved in the Klamath project, ensuring that they are 
included in the Endangered Species Act consultations that could affect 
operations of the water project they rely upon.
  Applicant status also ensures that information and alternative 
actions provided by the contractors must be considered when the Bureau 
considers ESA-related operational changes.
  While the Bureau has, in its words, treated the contractors ``in a 
manner similar to applicants'' since the 1990s and local tribes have 
invited contractors to provide information, the Bureau has not granted 
them the protections and input that the full applicant status would 
provide.
  H.R. 2898 already provides applicant status for the federally 
operated Central Valley Project in California, and this simply ensures 
that all Federal water contractors in the region receive equal legal 
protections.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa) for yielding and for working with me on this amendment as 
well, which will assist our Klamath project farmers in the Klamath 
Basin.
  As you pointed out, there is a long history of water issues in this 
basin and there is much work to be done. Frankly, a basin-wide, long-
term solution is what is most needed. While we are working toward that 
solution, these issues remain.
  In the interim, it is critical that we pass this amendment to simply 
formalize the rule of the Klamath project irrigators by giving them 
applicant status for ESA consultations.
  The Klamath project contractors have existing contracts with the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and they are directly affected by Reclamation's 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
  In recent years, as you mentioned, the Klamath project contractors 
have provided input to the section 7 consultations through the 
invitation of the Klamath tribes. I would like to thank the Klamath 
tribes and especially Klamath Tribal Chairman Don Gentry for working 
with the project contractors through this process.
  So passing this amendment would only formalize the practice that has 
already been occurring and ensure the project contractors could 
continue this process in the future.
  To legislatively designate the project contractors as having the role 
of applicants would not change the substantive obligations of the 
Bureau of Reclamation under the ESA or the obligations of the wildlife 
agencies to prepare biological opinions.
  So I would ask my colleagues to join us in formalizing a process that 
has been sort of informal along the way, but inconsistent at times, and 
give the consistency there that is important to continue the 
discussions that are underway in the basin.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am the other neighbor on this Klamath-
Trinity water system. I didn't have the benefit of working with my 
colleagues on this legislation.
  My hope, as we go forward, is that we could be a little more 
neighborly and try to talk with each other and work together on this 
system that affects our mutual constituents.
  Mr. Chair, as if the underlying bill, which includes numerous 
assaults on the Endangered Species Act, is not bad enough, 
unfortunately, this is an amendment that would make it even worse.
  It plays favorites among stakeholders, elevating agriculture above 
all else at the expense of the environment and other cultural and 
economic interests.
  As if the Klamath water contractors don't have things good enough 
with taxpayer-subsidized water and zero-interest loans, this amendment 
seeks to give them special status and significantly more leverage 
during the Endangered Species Act consultation process.
  As long as the project is in place, the Bureau of Reclamation has a 
duty to manage it for the benefit of all stakeholders. That is 
important.
  The interests of the water contractors are certainly no more 
legitimate than those of the Klamath tribes for whom endangered fish 
are part of their cultural heritage, nor are they more important than 
the interests of commercial and recreational fishermen, who generate 
hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy and continue to wait 
patiently for the restoration of fish stocks vital to their 
livelihoods.
  In addition to being a bad deal for tribes and fishermen, this 
amendment is yet another attempt by House Republicans to drive the 
extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
  Let's be honest. Giving agricultural interests privileged status in 
``helping'' to determine the fate of endangered coho salmon and 
endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers is nothing short of a death 
sentence for those species.
  It is past time for my colleagues across the aisle to stop blaming 
the Endangered Species Act for all of their ills. Fish did not cause 
the drought, and killing them will not make it go away.
  The better solution is to make water use more sustainable for 
Californians and the environment that they cherish.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, it is a little harder to be neighborly when 
the facts get twisted around and the intent of the bill is 
misconstrued.
  Indeed, this has been a collaborative process with the Bureau, the 
tribes inviting information from those stakeholders that are the water 
contractors.
  This would simply confer a status upon them that would make them 
fully at the table as an applicant. It doesn't do anything to change 
the allocation or any other factor of those water contractors or give 
them any favorite status.
  I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I would just say, as somebody who has been 
involved in these issues going back to 1999, I have worked with the 
tribes. I have worked with irrigators to prove fish passage and to help 
improve fish health.
  So I really take offense to the kind of language you are using here 
on the floor because we have done a lot of good to put fish screens in, 
to help improve the survivability of the suckers, to put more water 
aside. We have done a lot of good things.
  So I welcome you to this House, and I welcome you to work with us on 
these issues, but I have to tell you it is a little offensive in your 
comments.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. We could start working together on the Klamath 
restoration settlement and, moving forward, that legislation.
  I hope that we can begin to talk together. We have legitimate 
interests on both sides of the State border and at both ends of this 
important watershed.
  Mr. WALDEN. If the gentleman will yield, I am just saying there is a 
better way to have this discussion than hurling the kind of language 
you are hurling around, because a lot of us have worked, both sides, 
bipartisan, and a lot of work. I open the door to have those 
conversations with you as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds the gentleman from Oregon that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) controls the time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, the ESA requires us to use the best available

[[Page 11767]]

science and information and have all the stakeholders able to be at the 
table, such as having full applicant status, for the Klamath water 
users.
  Having them as an applicant just gets more information and more input 
from everybody that might be affected by possible ESA decisions.
  We would love to work in a collaborative, neighborly process around 
here. When the rhetoric flies so much that accuses us, accuses that 
water users up there a long time, that have had a promise made to them 
by the Federal Government of being something other than what they are, 
it does make it difficult. And it is the kind of thing that the 
American people, as they view the operations on TV, really get tired 
of.
  So I would be one that would love to cooperate and get a result. But 
on this amendment here, we need this help for those contractors to have 
a fair seat at the table.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 114-204.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 162, line 5, strike ``into the'' and all that follows 
     through line 15, and insert ``for projects that reclaim and 
     reuse wastewaters.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 362, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, before I speak to my amendment, I want to 
acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her 
input on this amendment and for her long advocacy for water reuse, 
recycling, and conservation, and for emphasizing that we need a near-
term water-creation strategy, along with a long-term sustainable 
strategy. H.R. 2898 is not that long-term sustainable strategy.
  Californians and others across the west need drought relief now. The 
proponents of this legislation know that it will not provide that 
immediate relief. They also know their bill will never become law.
  So why are we here today, wasting everybody's time? It is simply 
because House Republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to 
attack the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy 
Act.
  The allegation that environmental laws have restricted dam 
construction is patently false. In fact, it was President Reagan who 
first sought to help curb the deficit by turning off the tap of easy 
Federal money that had funded multi-billion-dollar boondoggles and pork 
barrel dam projects.
  Building new dams takes forever because it doesn't make economic 
sense without heavy government subsidies. Instead of flushing 
taxpayers' dollars, we should be investing in projects that recycle 
wastewater, create reuse, and provide immediate water supplies.
  Eighty-seven percent of California's wastewater, hundreds of billions 
of gallons of water that could supply the needs of agriculture and 
people, is lost to the Pacific Ocean each year because we do not have 
enough water recycling projects in place. This is literally an ocean of 
missed opportunity.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates new water for the people of 
California. If Republicans were serious about solving this drought 
problem, they would have written a bill that creates new water. Sadly, 
they have not. Instead, they have written a bill that uses a very real 
crisis to attack the ESA and NEPA.
  This bill insults people who are suffering through this historic 
drought, and it is just the latest example of House Republicans 
blocking public participation in government and driving the extinction 
of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
  I agree with my colleagues; this is a manmade drought. It is manmade 
because we are not conserving and recycling water that we have and 
because we are wasting time on this bill instead of planning to 
increase water supplies in the short term and in long-term sustainable 
strategies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier this is a time of 
choosing between two very different visions. The Democrats offer us a 
vision of scarcity and astronomical water prices. We have been trying 
it their way--it doesn't end well. Our bill serves a different vision 
of abundant water and hydroelectricity at affordable prices--and the 
prosperity and the quality of life that means for every American.
  Water is plentiful, but it is unevenly distributed over time. We 
build reservoirs to store water in wet years so that we have it in dry 
ones. We stopped building major reservoirs over 1 million acre-feet 40 
years ago because of policies imposed on us by the very same voices 
that we now hear raised against this bill. The Sacramento River is 
bigger than the Colorado, yet we store 70 million acre-feet on the 
Colorado and only 10 million acre-feet on the Sacramento.
  We will not solve our water shortage until we build more dams. That 
is what our bill does.
  This amendment would scrap this vision of abundance for more of the 
same--not more water, only more conservation, more recycling, and more 
doing with less. Conservation is important in a drought, but 
conservation is the management of a shortage. Managing a shortage does 
not solve a shortage. Only abundance can do that.
  Mr. Chairman, when we confuse conservation with supply, as these 
voices from the left always do, in a real drought, we discover that we 
have already played that card and we no longer have it available to 
stretch supplies in an emergency.
  Mr. Chairman, new dams not only mean more abundant water for the 
West; they provide clean, cheap, and reliable hydroelectricity. They 
provide flood control to protect regions that would otherwise be 
inundated and uninhabitable. They assure year-round flows of water to 
riparian habitats that would otherwise be desiccated in drought and 
devastated by flood. All of these benefits would be sacrificed on the 
altar of the environmental left by this amendment.
  Supply or shortage, that is the question. This bill opens up a new 
era of supply. This amendment takes us further down the road of coping 
with shortage not as a temporary stopgap, but as a way of life.
  Well, we have had a taste of that way of life. We have watched our 
lawns turn brown. We have watched our water bills skyrocket. We have 
watched businesses shut down. We have watched thousands of farmworkers 
thrown out of work. We have seen food lines in the fertile agricultural 
region of the West. We have had enough.
  Mr. Chairman, we seek a new future where water and hydroelectricity 
are abundant and inexpensive, where jobs are plentiful, where grocery 
shelves are full, where water police are not knocking on the door 
because we have taken too long in the shower, and where our lawns and 
gardens are green again.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times had an article entitled, 
``Editorial: GOP Water Bill in Congress

[[Page 11768]]

Should Be Rejected.'' It compared the two pieces of legislation, Jared 
Huffman's H.R. 2983 and the bill that is on the floor today, H.R. 2898. 
The conclusion was that we needed a commonsense, comprehensive 
approach.
  The article says, ``the Huffman bill is starkly different and frankly 
much smarter, focusing on updating Federal water policies and practices 
that today are firmly rooted in outdated, mid-20th century knowledge 
and technology.''
  It is a comprehensive approach that my side of the aisle seeks, and 
this legislation before us today does nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to another important aspect of the 
legislation, which is the issue of relief. Providing a near-term 
relief, I think, is essential--that is not to stall a long-term 
solution, but to provide the relief that everybody has talked about 
that California and the Central Valley needs.
  The Central Valley has been described as the ``Salad Bowl'' of 
America. The delicious crops that are grown there are consumed by 
Americans at a low cost. There is an occasional reference to the people 
that day in and day out labor to pick those crops and put them on the 
tables of the American people--the farmworkers.
  Referencing their dire economic and living conditions that they find 
themselves in right now, the conclusion is that we need to proceed to 
pass H.R. 2898 to help these farmworkers and their families. I agree; 
farmworkers and their families must be a priority for relief. H.R. 2898 
doesn't provide any relief to farmworkers and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, farmworkers need an investment. They need an investment 
in education; they need an investment in housing; they need an 
investment in livable incomes, and they need to work on the 
concentrated poverty that we find. Those areas of farmworker 
communities had one of the highest poverty rates in California before 
the drought; they are at a high poverty rate now with the drought; and 
if we want to change the course of history, we need to deal with that 
issue. We need to continue to restrict pesticide use that harms humans, 
and we need to have working conditions and opportunity available to 
farmworkers.
  Farmworkers don't need crocodile tears. They need relief; they need 
attention, and they need investment. They need a relief that is near 
term and not one dominated by technology and outmoded strategies that 
will not bring that relief to them. We should be about creating 
opportunity, creating immediate relief, and helping those families not 
only in the near term, but in the long term.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment not because it provides 
additional water for reclamation and reuse, which I support. I am 
opposed to this amendment because it prevents any of these funds from 
being used for storage--groundwater and surface storage water.
  As I said earlier, Californians, by over a two-thirds vote, supported 
a significant bond measure last year for that water storage, both 
surface and groundwater. This amendment would prevent that from 
occurring.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also talk a little bit about the narrative that 
has been coming from some of my colleagues that I just firmly reject 
about this legislation and the underlying bill.
  This does not--this does not--amend the Endangered Species Act. It 
does not provide any kind of a rollback of the endangered species law. 
That is just false.
  It does not impact the water quality of the delta or the bay. And do 
you know why? Because we have a State law in California under Decision 
1641 that requires the State Water Board to monitor the level of 
salinity in the delta and to protect the water quality for people in 
the Bay area who derive their water from that source.
  So how could this legislation impact Decision 1641? It simply cannot.
  As it relates to the operational flexibility, which has been alluded 
to as the great problem in this legislation, much of that flexibility 
that we have been urging over 4 years has begun to take place in the 
last year or 2. This legislation would take that flexibility that they 
finally have begun to do and put that in practice and codify it in law. 
That is what this legislation does.
  I must say, Mr. Chairman, that under the constraints of this 
legislation, with this greater flexibility, the Secretary of the 
Interior still has the ability to provide the justification, in fact, 
if she feels that this flexibility cannot be implemented.
  Mr. Chairman, those protections are there. That is what this 
legislation does. I urge your support.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-204 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. LaMalfa of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 236, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)

[[Page 11769]]


     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brat
     Byrne
     Conyers
     Costello (PA)
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Johnson (GA)
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Smith (WA)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1206

  Messrs. McKINLEY, SHIMKUS, and HENSARLING changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RANGEL, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. 
LOFGREN, and Mr. PASCRELL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 443, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 172, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 444]

                               AYES--246

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--172

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch

[[Page 11770]]


     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Conyers
     Costello (PA)
     Cummings
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Garrett
     Graves (MO)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Joyce
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Nolan
     Pelosi


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1210

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 242, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Conyers
     Costello (PA)
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Marchant
     Nolan
     Pelosi
     Woodall


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1214

  Mr. BUCK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2898) to 
provide drought relief in the State of California, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 362, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page 11771]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BERA. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bera moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2898 to the 
     Natural Resources Committee, with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       After section 610, insert the following:

     SEC. 611. PROTECTING THE SUPPLY OF WATER FOR DRINKING AND TO 
                   FIGHT WILDFIRES.

       Under the provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that there is an adequate supply of water--
       (1) for residential drinking water that is safe and not 
     tainted with arsenic, salt, nitrates from fertilizers, 
     industrial chemicals, or harmful algae, which become 
     concentrated in diminished water supplies; and
       (2) to fight wildfires, utilizing water from reservoirs or 
     other surface waters, and to honor Tribal water rights.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that we consider it as having been read and we dispense with 
the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which 
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, this 
bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is simple. It ensures that we have safe 
drinking water for our constituents and enough water to fight 
wildfires.
  It has been hot and dry in California. We are now in the fourth 
straight year of drought conditions; and, in fact, 95 percent of our 
State has reached severe drought status. This is a problem.
  We are talking about families; we are talking about farmers, small-
business owners who are feeling the pain of this prolonged drought 
every day. It is a crisis, and in a crisis, everyone has to come 
together, to work together to find solutions that work for all of us.
  However, the bill offered today, yet again, undermines the efforts 
that were taken in California to work together, and instead, it allows 
Washington, D.C., politicians to pick winners and losers and pit 
communities against each other. This bill creates no water. It does not 
solve this crisis, and that is a problem.
  Look at this picture. This is my home district, Folsom Lake. This is 
what it looked like last summer, and this summer, it is worse. In fact, 
Folsom Lake right now is at 42 percent of capacity. By August, it is 
expected to reach the lowest point in recorded history. Over half a 
million people depend on Folsom Lake for their drinking water.
  We owe it to the families of Folsom, Fair Oaks, Roseville, and all 
across the State to work together to better manage the water that we 
have. As currently written, this bill would jeopardize their access to 
safe water. As water supplies decrease, residential drinking water 
risks contamination from higher concentrations of nitrates, arsenic, 
industrial chemicals, and harmful algae.
  We owe it to the people in our State to make sure, when they turn on 
their taps, they have safe drinking water. Let's work together to find 
comprehensive solutions, long-term solutions to ensure their access to 
storage. We have got to work together as Democrats and Republicans, not 
pit northern California against southern California. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this motion their full 
support.
  I yield to the gentleman from southern California (Mr. Peters), my 
colleague.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, across the West and particularly in 
California, we are in the fourth year of a prolonged drought that is 
placing us at increased risk for wildfires.
  The underlying bill would harm not just one community or industrial 
sector, but would undercut years of existing water policy and put 
communities like mine in San Diego in more danger. The images of 
depleted reservoirs, lakes, and streams drying up abound, with millions 
of dead trees littering our forests. As The New York Times reported 
just yesterday: ``For those who know fire, fuel is now all they see.''
  We are in the midst of what we expect to be a long and harsh wildfire 
season. Just since January 1, California fire officials have responded 
to more than 3,300 wildfires, which is a thousand more than the average 
from the last 5 years.
  The lake fire that started just a month ago has consumed an area of 
national forest roughly the size of San Francisco, and the dozens of 
wildfires that erupted in San Diego last May burned thousands of acres 
and destroyed 65 homes. Projections show that the cost of fighting 
wildfires this year could reach up to $2.1 billion, far above the 
roughly $450 million spent annually in the 1990s.
  It is not just money at stake. Two of the most deadly wildfires in 
California history, the Witch and Cedar fires occurred in San Diego and 
killed 17 people. This is also a matter of life and death.
  This bill does not make it rain; no one can do that. It simply 
undermines the State of California's water policies to move water away 
from one set of communities and into different ones.
  The motion to recommit requires that, as we make changes to Western 
water allocations, we ensure there is enough water in reservoirs, 
lakes, and community supplies to make sure that wildfires can be fought 
when they occur, which they certainly will. It also ensures that we 
honor the existing tribal water rights and protect the health of those 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and to oppose 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to 
the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion. 
Obviously, if it were a serious one, we could have considered it 
anytime in committee or on the floor in the amendment process, but it 
is a procedural motion that is also somewhat flawed.
  In this particular one, it mentions that nothing will happen until 
the Secretary shall ensure that something happens. Unfortunately, in 
this provision of the bill, they don't define Secretary, so I am not 
really sure which Secretary would have to define something. It could be 
the secretary of my office if you really wanted it that way. It 
provides that we are going to have water for drinking and for 
wildfires.
  Now, some of you may remember that, last week, we actually had a 
forest bill in here which provided for wildfires. We gave them money; 
we gave them authority; we gave them the tools. It passed with a 
bipartisan vote, but some of our friends who are not voting for this 
one weren't voting for that one either. We solved the wildfire issue 
already, scratched that one off.
  If you really want drinking water, that is what the base bill does. 
The entire purpose of this bill is to emphasize the fact that, in this 
drought, we are trying to help people. The goal is to get water to 
people so they can work.
  In an area that has a 50 percent unemployment rate, they can provide 
food for people. It is important to all of us. It is not as important 
for me as it used to be, but it is still important for all of us.
  We actually provide jobs for people in these areas where they 
desperately need that work. We are doing it. This is about people. This 
is moving water so people can actually be helped, and that is what the 
underlying bill has to do, and the procedural issues that we are trying 
to hold up this process, they don't actually help people. They may help 
the process, but they don't actually help people.

[[Page 11772]]

  We need a policy more than the opponents of this bill have, which is: 
Let's pray for rain and hope something happens.
  We need to do what our pioneer ancestors told us to do and take the 
water we have and save it and store it, and that is what the underlying 
bill does, not just for California, but for the rest of the West, for 
all of us, where we have these same types of situations.
  You can vote for the underlying bill, realizing you are helping 
people. Good grief, 2008, we found water on Mars; we can actually find 
water for people here in the West.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit; support the underlying bill. 
Let's get this bill going through the system so we can actually do 
something good for the people of this country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage of the bill, 
if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               AYES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brat
     Costello (PA)
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Murphy (FL)
     Nolan
     Palazzo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1233

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 446, my vote did not register. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 176, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 447]

                               AYES--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 11773]]


     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Costello (PA)
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Hudson
     Larson (CT)
     Long
     Murphy (FL)
     Nolan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1239

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 446 and 447. 446 
Recommit--``yes,'' 447. Passage of H.R. 2898--``no.''

                          ____________________