[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10477-10508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              GAINING RESPONSIBILITY ON WATER ACT OF 2017


                             general leave

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 23.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 23.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1634


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 23) to provide drought relief in the State of California, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Perry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in California, 5 years of historic drought caused 
billions of dollars of damage to our economy, destroyed tens of 
thousands of jobs, and brought many communities within just months of 
literally running out of water, all because we couldn't store water 
from the wet years to assure plenty in the drought years.
  Then back to back with this historic drought, we have just had one of 
the wettest winters on record. Massive torrents of water threatened 
entire communities on its way to be wasted in the Pacific Ocean, all 
because of the very same problem: we have few reservoirs to store this 
superabundance of water for the next drought.
  Even before the drought, massive water diversions required by a 
growing tangle of laws and regulations had created devastating economic 
hardship in California's fertile Central Valley. Those same policies 
forced us to release what precious little water we had remaining behind 
our dams to adjust river temperatures for fish.
  For three Congresses now, the House has acted to fix this folly. 
Today, H.R. 23, the GROW Act, by Congressman David Valadao, addresses 
the policy, regulatory, and administrative failures that have 
mismanaged our water supplies across the West.
  The GROW Act includes both short-term and long-term provisions aimed 
at restoring water reliability and certainty to cities and farms. It 
includes seven titles that expand water storage, improve 
infrastructure, protect water rights, and create more abundant and 
reliable water resources to benefit both communities and the 
environment.
  The GROW Act gives Federal agencies the tools they need to help 
safeguard communities from the hardship of future droughts. It codifies 
the historic Bay-Delta accord that provided an equitable balance 
between human and environmental needs and guaranteed the reliability 
and predictability of our water supplies.
  It strengthens northern California area-of-origin water rights and 
prevents the Federal Government from demanding that people give up 
their water rights in order to operate on Federal land.
  It streamlines the endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive 
environmental permitting that is blocking new reservoir construction by 
coordinating Federal agencies and requiring transparency of the science 
behind its decisions.
  It requires completion of studies for five new reservoirs that have 
dragged on for decades.
  In the past, we have heard three objections from opponents. The first 
is it will decimate salmon fisheries. On the contrary, it saves those 
fisheries where the environmental policies of the past 40 years have 
utterly failed to protect them.
  The GROW Act targets the nonnative predators that are responsible for 
90 percent of salmon losses as the smolts try to make their way to the 
ocean. It encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure that salmon 
populations will increase dramatically in future years.
  The second objection is that it will preempt State water rights laws. 
Read section 302 of the bill. ``The Secretary of the Interior is 
directed, in operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to 
California's water rights laws governing water rights priorities . . 
.''
  It goes on to say that diversions ``shall not be undertaken in a 
manner that alters the water rights priorities established by 
California law.''
  It does have provisions necessary to codify the Bay-Delta agreement 
and combat invasive predators, but this doesn't set a precedent for 
other States. California is unique among the States in the fact that it 
operates with a coordinated operating agreement that combines the 
Federal Central Valley Project and the California State water projects 
and runs them as a unified system. This was at the request of 
California and with its consent.
  The third objection is that it rewards powerful agricultural 
interests at the

[[Page 10478]]

expense of consumers. This is nonsense. An average consumer uses 
roughly 100 gallons a day to wash the dishes, water the lawn, 
everything else we do in our daily lives. But when you purchase a 
cheeseburger, you have just consumed 750 gallons of water because that 
is what it takes to grow the ingredients in that cheeseburger. Buy a 
pair of jeans, you have just used 1,800 gallons of water.
  The fact is that all of this water benefits consumers and the tens of 
thousands of farm workers and others who provide for their families 
from this water.
  Droughts are nature's fault. Water shortages are our fault. They are 
a choice we made a generation ago when we chose to neglect our 
infrastructure and mismanage our water resources. It has led to 
increasingly severe water shortages, spiraling utility and grocery 
bills, and economic stagnation. The GROW Act chooses a brighter future 
of abundance and prosperity that can begin today with our vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, so much for regular order. The bill before us today has 
not received a hearing in committee where witnesses could have 
testified about its effects. It has not gone through the markup process 
so that the committee of jurisdiction could actually debate and offer 
amendments to improve it.
  Moreover, we are about to vote on a bill with several provisions that 
no one has ever seen before last Wednesday, aside from a small group of 
Republican offices and special interests that have been working on the 
bill.
  Now, this closed-door process not only ignores the changing 
conditions of drought in California and how the State has already been 
adapting to meet water conservation needs, but it also ignores all of 
California's water provisions that were included, albeit at the last 
minute, in the WIIN Act last year, which is now Federal law.
  There has been no discussion, no hearing, no way to know how the 
provisions of this bill that overlap with the enacted law will actually 
be implemented by the Trump administration. This is legislating blind, 
and it is a bad idea.
  On some level, I do understand my Republican colleagues' fear of 
regular order on this bill. The more sunlight and public scrutiny that 
this bill gets, the uglier it looks. Make no mistake, if enacted, this 
bill will hurt a lot of people.
  This bill takes water away from fishermen, from tribes, the 
environment, Delta farmers, and others in order to redistribute it 
primarily to a small group of some of the Nation's biggest and most 
politically connected agribusiness interests.
  My Republican colleagues often talk about States' rights, yet this 
bill repeatedly overrides State laws over the objection of that State. 
I am talking, of course, about California.
  A letter of opposition to H.R. 23 recently came from Governor Jerry 
Brown, sent to the speaker of the house in the California Congressional 
Delegation attesting to this. Governor Brown writes: ``This bill 
overrides California water law, ignoring our State's prerogative to 
oversee our waters. Commandeering our laws for purposes defined in 
Washington is not right.''
  This assault on California law and its values are why both California 
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Kamala Harris oppose this bill as 
well.
  Now, here are just a few examples of the sections in this bill that 
preempt State law. Section 108(d) begins with the words ``California 
law is preempted'' on page 21, paragraph 3. That section goes on to 
remove State protections for certain fisheries.
  Section 113 of the bill preempts California law that requires the 
restoration of California's second longest river and that river's 
native salmon runs.
  Section 108 of the bill tells the State of California that it is 
barred from managing the State's water in any way that would ``protect, 
enhance, or restore . . . any public trust value.'' In other words, the 
broader public interest can't be considered by the State when it is 
managing the water that belongs to the people of California.
  Additionally, this bill eliminates existing fishery protections, 
which could put many of California's native fisheries and the thousands 
of jobs they support on a path to extinction. That means that this is 
more than just a California problem, because fishing communities in 
Oregon and Washington also depend on California salmon runs.
  There was a recent UC Davis report that found that if present trends 
continue, many of California's salmon runs are on a path to extinction 
in the decades ahead. This bill would hasten that prediction into 
reality.
  This is not just an environmental impact. It is a human one as well. 
We have heard from fishermen who are struggling to pay their mortgages, 
boats are being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes 
are being repossessed. We have heard about the struggles of small-
business owners running restaurants, hotels, and other retail and 
service businesses. We have also heard from Indian Country, like the 
Hoopa Valley Tribe that I represent, and others about the danger that 
this bill poses to tribal fisheries, to tribal water, fishing, 
property, and other rights.

                              {time}  1645

  Rather than simply picking winners and losers, as this destructive 
bill does, Congress should be working together to grow water supplies 
for everyone without violating Tribal responsibilities or overriding 
State sovereignty. Congress could be supporting a range of modern water 
technologies like reuse, desalination, water use efficiency, storm 
water capture, and groundwater storage and remediation. These are the 
tools that have increased California's water supplies in recent years 
and are making our State more drought resilient, but this bill does 
none of that.
  These are not controversial suggestions working on these modern water 
supply tools; in fact, it was the reclamation commissioner for 
President George W. Bush who described the water that we could tap 
through reuse as the next great river of the American West. We should 
be focusing on those kind of noncontroversial consensus solutions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Nunes), who has been a leader on this issue for more 
than two decades.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. McClintock for yielding me the 
time and for his kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to the other side of the 
aisle because some things that are said on this floor are so ridiculous 
that they don't deserve a response. So I just want to talk today, Mr. 
Chairman, about the facts that we face in the San Joaquin Valley.
  So in the southern and central San Joaquin Valley, we have about 3 
million acres of farm ground, land that is the most fertile farmland in 
the world--not just in the United States, in the world. We are in 
danger of losing about a third of that farmland largely because the 
leftwing government in California has overreached so far that they are 
now taking away people's private property rights.
  So I want to talk first about our water shortage. So this is the 
shortage of water that we have in the valley. So it is about 2.6 
million acre feet are what we need on average to farm all of the land 
that we have historically farmed in our area.
  Now, these are farms that provide food for not only the people of the 
United States and all over the world but also for the families that 
work on these farms.
  So we hear a lot about drought, and we have had supposedly a severe 
drought, and it was no question a severe drought, but what the left 
continues to not want to talk about is all the water that gets dumped 
out into the ocean every year. So just from October of last year to 
just a couple days ago, 46 million acre feet of water have gone out to 
the ocean. So if you go

[[Page 10479]]

back to the chart I just had, we are only short 2.6 million acre feet. 
So of the water that has flown into the delta in the middle of 
California, 92 percent of that water has gone out to the ocean, and it 
has been wasted.
  Now, some on the other side of the aisle, they continually talk about 
global warming, and they continually talk about how the oceans are 
rising. Well, if you believe the oceans are rising, why would you want 
more water to flow out into the ocean? I don't understand that.
  So this is about a million acres of farmland that is going to come 
out of production if we don't do anything about it. About 1 million 
acres over the next decade will begin to come out of production. In 
fact, some this year is already out of production because none of the 
water was moved early enough so that it could get to farms in time.
  So even though we have flooding--so this picture was taken just a 
couple days ago--this is water spilling over the top of the dam that is 
going to go all the way out into the ocean and be wasted, for an ocean 
that supposedly is rising because of global warming. So this is 
happening because, as Mr. McClintock said, we are not building water 
storage projects.
  So what this bill does is it reverts back to what the Founding 
Fathers of our State built, mostly Democrats, by the way. It was 
Democrats working with the Republicans who built this water system in 
California. So if we take the existing water system that we have, we 
add to that four or five facilities, like Mr. McClintock is talking 
about, all the land gets farmed, all the species get saved, everybody 
goes to work.
  What you will not hear from the left, and this is very disturbing, I 
only picked the least disturbing of all the pictures, but I think it is 
important for people here in Washington and all over the United States 
to understand this, this is just one family of many of thousands of 
families where their homes actually ran out of water. So this picture 
is not from Africa, it is not from somewhere in Southeast Asia. This is 
a picture from my area, from my district, from the central and southern 
San Joaquin Valley. These are people who are out of water.
  So the left always talks about wanting to protect people, wanting 
people to be able to work, yet we have people with no water in their 
homes, and yet they are willing to see 92 percent of the water flush 
right out by the Golden Gate Bridge and be wasted for an ocean that 
supposedly is filling up.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We often hear about water that flows through the estuary of 
California's Bay-Delta system, we hear that sometimes described as 
wasted. There are some inconvenient facts that we have to bring up when 
that happens, like the fact that almost all of that water that flows 
out through the estuary is to prevent salt water intrusion so that the 
State and Federal water pumps aren't sending salty water to millions of 
Californians. That wouldn't work. In fact, if we shut down all of that 
outflow that my colleague just mentioned, that is exactly what you 
would see: massive salt water intrusion and a shutdown of the State and 
Federal water projects.
  There is also incredible value in the water that flows through that 
estuary for downstream communities and farmers and senior water right 
holders, and others who have depended on it for decades. No one 
understands that better than my colleague who represents some of those 
communities in the estuary, in the delta, Mike Thompson.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this bill, and I rise on behalf of the fishermen, the landowners, the 
delta and north-of-delta farmers, the conservationists, the sportsmen, 
coastal communities, the counties in my district, and the water users 
across our State that will be harmed by this bill.
  This is a disappointing effort to take care of the San Joaquin 
Valley's massive agro businesses at the expense of everyone else.
  More times than I can count, I have stood on this floor with many of 
my colleagues from California to explain that our State's water system 
is complicated. It is because there are hundreds of stakeholders. There 
are decades of rules, laws, and court cases from every level of 
government and industry that regulate the delivery of water to users 
across our State.
  Once again, this body is proposing to end-run that delicate balance 
to benefit one interest. That is wrong.
  Once again, we are gutting Federal protections for fish and wildlife 
that support our State's $3.5 billion hunting and angling industry and 
our $1.5 billion salmon industry.
  Once again, we are preempting California laws and regulations, 
telling States across America that we are okay with the Federal 
Government undermining State and local experts from coast to coast, but 
this time they are going further.
  This bill isn't just about water anymore. It is about giving 
contractors a pass on their obligations to be good stewards of the 
resources they are using in the Central Valley of California; it is 
about reneging on this body's commitment to the restoration of wildlife 
and habitat that have suffered the consequences of water management 
plans that already put them last; it is about cutting stakeholders out 
of the picture and determining winners and losers in Federal statute; 
taking a blunt ax to our State's water system over the objections of 
our Governor, both of our Senators, and many of our colleagues in the 
House. This is wrong for California.
  It won't alleviate water shortages, but it will kill jobs, and it 
will ruin drinking water for millions.
  We need real solutions that are based on sound science and that work 
for everyone. This bill is not that solution. It is bad for 
California's economy, bad for our State sovereignty, and bad for our 
environment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, the first slide that I wanted to present 
here is one that I think is very important when we talk about water 
going out into the ocean.
  The first bar there, the dark blue one, is how much water was flowing 
through the estuary this past year.
  The second bar is actually a little bit of an exaggeration. If we 
took every single reservoir that we propose in this bill, multiplied it 
by ten--ten times the amount of storage that we are proposing--we still 
wouldn't use all that water. There would still be quite a bit of water 
flowing out into the ocean. So multiply every single project times ten, 
and we still don't use up all the water.
  So there was a lot of water wasted this year alone that we had the 
opportunity to capture if this bill had been presented earlier or 
passed into law, and we had the opportunity to actually make a 
difference.
  Why does that make a difference to so many folks? It makes a 
difference because the Central Valley is very important to the country. 
We feed the Nation. When you look at all the different commodities, and 
this is just a small sample, we produce over 400 different commodities, 
and a lot of these, a big majority, some of them as much as 99 percent 
of the different commodities that go through.
  So everyone sitting at home around the country should pay attention, 
because this affects their food supply. Even here in the Capitol, when 
you make yourself a salad at the salad bar, those salads, all those 
different products are produced mostly in the Central Valley, and so 
that is why this legislation is so important.
  The reason why it is important to my farmers to get this done, even 
in a year like this, where we had a 200 percent rainfall, with the 
amount of water that was flowing through that was, again, in my 
opinion, wasted, they didn't find out until it was too late. Planning 
decisions need to be made over at the beginning of this when the rain 
is coming down and they know that the water is

[[Page 10480]]

there, not in March or in April, because the opportunity has passed.
  Farmers are very optimistic people. They put stuff in the ground, 
cover it with dirt, and hope that it will grow so they can feed the 
world, but having them wait until April to make those decisions to 
plant those commodities and create those jobs is just way too late.
  Now, this is the one that I think is the most important. This is 
Mendota, California. This is a farm worker. This is what happens when 
we allow water to flow out into the ocean that is wasted. People are 
living in shantytowns. These are people who want to work and people who 
want to feed the world, people who want to provide for their own 
families, and not wait for a check from the government. They just want 
to know when they are getting their water so that they can start to 
produce crops and feed the world, but this, because of the policies 
through Washington, D.C., is what we end up with.
  Now all the folks who represent parts of my community in different 
ways, whether it is the water district, city, city councils, county 
governments, they have all sent in letters in support.
  I include in the Record a list of all the folks who sent in letters 
in support of the legislation.

                       Groups Supporting H.R. 23

       Agricultural Retailers Association; ASV Wines; Blue Diamond 
     Growers; California Cattlemen's Association; California 
     Citrus Mutual; California Farm Bureau Federation; California 
     Fresh Fruit Association; California Poultry Federation; 
     California Water Alliance; City of Arvin; City of Atwater; 
     City of Avenal; City of Clovis; City of Coalinga; City of 
     Corcoran; City of Delano; City of Dinuba; City of Exeter; 
     City of Farmersville; City of Firebaugh.
       City of Fowler; City of Fresno; City of Hanford; City of 
     Huron; City of Kerman; City of Kingsburg; City of Lemoore; 
     City of Lindsay; City of McFarland; City of Mendota; City of 
     Orange Cove; City of Parlier; City of Porterville; City of 
     Reedley; City of San Joaquin; City of Sanger; City of Selma; 
     City of Shafter; City of Tulare; City of Visalia; City of 
     Wasco; City of Woodlake; Coalinga Chamber of Commerce; 
     Corcoran Chamber of Commerce; Delano Chamber of Commerce.
       Fresno Association of Realtors; Fresno Chamber of Commerce; 
     Fresno County Board of Supervisors; Fresno County Farm 
     Bureau; Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission; Fresno 
     State; Friant Water Authority; Giumarra Vineyards; Gravelly 
     Ford Water District; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce; 
     Greater Reedley Chamber of Commerce; Hanford Chamber of 
     Commerce; Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District; Kerman 
     Chamber of Commerce; Kern County Board of Supervisors.
       Kern County EDC; Kern County Farm Bureau; Kern County 
     Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Kern County Water Agency; Kern 
     Ridge Growers, LLC; Kings County Board of Realtors; Kings 
     County Board of Supervisors; Kings County Farm Bureau; Kings 
     County Sheriff's Department; Kings River Conservation 
     District/Water Association; Lakeside Irrigation Water 
     District; Lemoore Chamber of Commerce; Madera County Farm 
     Bureau; Merced County Farm Bureau.
       Munger Farms; Municipal Water District of Orange County; 
     National Milk Producers Federation; Nickel Family, LLC; 
     Premier Valley Realty; San Joaquin River Exchange 
     Contractors; San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure 
     Authority; Shafter Chamber of Commerce; South Valley Water 
     Association.
       Sunview Vineyards; Tipton Community Council; Tulare Chamber 
     of Commerce; Tulare County Association of Governments; Tulare 
     County Association of Realtors; Tulare County Board of 
     Supervisors; Tulare County Farm Bureau; Tule River 
     Association; Western Growers; Westlands Water District.

  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have good, sound 
policy. I think it is time for the Governor and our Senators to play a 
role in this as well.
  This bill has been passed. We have gotten some things passed, and I 
know that my friend across the aisle mentioned that earlier, but even 
after the WIIN Act was passed into law, we still had a delay in 
decisions made, because our farmers had no clue that they were getting 
their water.
  So we have to pass legislation like this, this bill right here, and 
this is what can be helpful for us in the Central Valley in California 
and the Nation as a whole.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 23. Yet, again, it 
seems that instead of addressing the issues underlying California's 
water supply, some of my colleagues are more interested in fanning the 
flames of century-old water disputes.
  The city of Sacramento, which I represent, sits at the confluence of 
two major rivers, the Sacramento and the American. Because there is no 
such thing as an average water year in California, living under the 
threat of drought and flood has become a way of life for Sacramento 
residents.
  We are working with the Army Corps to invest billions of dollars in 
flood protection, and we are collaborating with the Bureau of 
Reclamation to build a groundwater bank and a water recycling facility 
to increase access to drinking water.
  Congress should explore real solutions to drought challenges, as the 
Sacramento region is doing.
  In the short term, we must be efficient about fixing leaks and waste 
while also continuing conservation efforts.
  In the long-term, we should be taking advantage of new technologies 
to monitor our water use and making investments in wastewater cycling 
in above- and below-ground water storage.
  Last Congress, I introduced a commonsense bill that removed barriers 
to wastewater cycling projects, making it possible for them to move 
forward more quickly and efficiently with Federal support. It 
ultimately became law. Yet instead of debating these types of 
solutions, we are wasting time on a bill that does not solve our 
underlying water supply problem.

                              {time}  1700

  I grew up on a farm in the Central Valley. My father, my uncles, and 
my grandfather were farmers. We raised peaches, plums, nectarines, and 
grapes. I recall living and understanding what water means to us, so I 
do understand the value and sensitivities about water.
  Now, in the Sacramento region, where I now represent, we have tried 
to take a balanced approach, working to protect the environment while 
providing water for our farms and our cities.
  It is misleading to claim that H.R. 23 will solve our drought 
problems. This legislation only prioritizes certain regions or 
industries instead of taking the comprehensive approach we need.
  And by giving the Federal Government power to dictate the best uses 
of the State's water, H.R. 23 sets a disastrous precedent for other 
States across the country that should raise alarm on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The bill we are discussing today undermines a State's autonomy. 
Ultimately, I am concerned that this bill will weaken environmental 
protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, and harm our State's 
ability to manage its own water.
  That is why I join my district and the State of California in 
strongly opposing this bill. We cannot afford to give up California's 
right to control its own water future. We must focus on an all-of-the-
above strategy that puts us on the path to a sustainable water supply 
while protecting our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this 
legislation.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here today 
has to do with the drought in California that, frankly, could have been 
solved had we been allowed to move forward with the storage that we 
need. Because the process now is one of watching the rains come, watch 
the water run out to the ocean, and we do not have the ability to block 
the red tape that prevents us from building the storage that would hold 
that water so that we can use it during the drought.
  What was the consequence of us not being able to address that? And 
why is it so important that we pass the GROW Act here that David 
Valadao from the Central Valley has introduced?
  Well, the consequences were one of having thousands of jobs 
disappear. The consequences were having dead crops plowed under in 
hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that

[[Page 10481]]

had been left idle. The consequences were that billions of dollars were 
lost in the State. And, frankly, the State of California produces 400 
commodities that are one-third of the country's vegetables. It is two-
thirds of this country's fruit. It is two-thirds of the nuts produced. 
The industry brings in $47 billion. When this happens, the consequences 
are felt by the farmers and by the people across California, by those 
thrown out of their jobs.
  This is an incredibly important industry not only in California, but 
for the entire country. So, for years, we haven't gotten the water we 
paid for or contracted for.
  But not to let us go forward with the additional storage and to put 
roadblocks in front of that, to absolutely block commonsense solutions, 
this has got to stop. This is why this legislation needs to be made 
into law.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, our environmental laws 
are not preventing new dams from being built. In fact, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the GAO, and the Congressional Research Service have 
looked at this and haven't been able to identify a single--nor my 
colleagues across the aisle have been able to identify a single dam 
project that somehow was blocked because of environmental laws.
  What has been stopping many of them--not all, but many of them--has 
been the financing challenge because many of these projects just don't 
make a lot of sense. It is important to realize that projects that do 
make sense have moved forward. They have secured financing. They 
haven't needed special shortcuts from the environmental laws. And they 
have happened, projects like Diamond Valley, projects like Los 
Vaqueros, probably the coming expansion of Los Vaqueros.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  We, in the San Joaquin Valley, know that where food grows, water 
flows. That is not just a saying; that is the truth. It takes water to 
grow the food that we rely on to sustain ourselves.
  Luckily, this year, we have been blessed with an abundance of rain 
and snow on the mountains--a record year. However, it is only because 
of the wettest year in California's historical record that the 
agricultural heartland of California, a place where half of our 
Nation's fruits and vegetables are grown, is, this year, free from 
drought.
  Only 1 year ago, over 83 percent of California was in a moderate 
drought or worse. We know that the next drought is sure to come, 
threatening valley families and farm communities. It is either feast or 
famine. We measure water on 10-year averages. That is why we need 
solutions that solve this long-term challenge.
  I commend Congressman Valadao for continuing this effort. As I noted 
in a letter I wrote to him in February, though, I have concerns that 
this legislation, without some improvements, will fail to be that long-
term solution that the valley and our State so desperately needs. This 
solution must be, at the end of the day, multifaceted, must not pick 
winners and losers, as California water policies in the past have so 
frequently done, to the detriment of both the agricultural economy, 
which we have felt, and California's ecosystems. Sadly, some of the 
provisions within this legislation, in my opinion, I think fail to meet 
this test.
  Language within titles 1 and 3 would pose threats to the wetlands of 
Grasslands Ecological Area, the largest wetlands west of the 
Mississippi, a vital component of the Pacific Flyway, in an area that 
contributes nearly $73 million a year alone to Merced County, which I 
represent.
  Section 106 would drastically cut collections to the Central Valley 
Project Restoration Fund, which pays for refuge water conveyance--that 
is very important--and that would transfer oversight of the fund to 
other water users. It would also, I think, supersede State laws in some 
areas that, frankly, over the experience I have had, in many years, 
will create more problems than it solves.
  In addition to these concerns, I know from having worked on water 
solutions for over 30 years that both here and in Sacramento, the only 
path to legislative success is through bipartisan, bicameral action, as 
we experienced in December with the passage of the WIIN Act that, by 
the way, authorized four reservoirs that was contained in the WIIN Act 
that Senator Feinstein and I and Republicans in the House worked on 
together in a very constructive way.
  So, as always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues in both the 
House and the Senate on a bipartisan basis to improve this legislation 
and get solutions to fix California's broken water system to the 
President's desk.
  I support moving this legislation forward to the Senate. But let's be 
clear, this is a work in progress, and much more work remains for this 
legislation, I think, to be successful.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the dean of the Republican 
delegation to the House.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Last winter, two miracles occurred 3,000 miles apart. Here in 
Washington, our Nation's Capital, Republicans and Democrats came 
together and passed a significant water bill that was signed into law. 
Back in California, we saw massive amounts of rainfall that came down 
in our drought-stricken State, quickly filling our depleted reservoirs.
  But I think we can actually take another big step forward by passing 
H.R. 23, the GROW Act. This bill before us provides even more long-term 
water solutions for California by expediting the consideration of 
feasibility studies for water storage projects that have languished for 
periods of time that are longer than it took to actually build the 
Hoover Dam. The GROW Act also includes provisions that are critical to 
the Bay-Delta operations and help improve water reliability.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, you heard a lot of doomsday predictions from 
certain groups that said the language we passed would push threatened 
species towards extinction. That did not happen. Today you hear a lot 
of the same talk. But solutions to H.R. 23 are common sense and will 
bring reliability to the water supply of California.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we see this bill every Congress. That is, every 2 years 
we fight this thing out.
  Let's talk about what it would do. It would weaken the Endangered 
Species Act--that has been a target of the Republican Party for 
decades. It will benefit one region while harming another. It will make 
a few people very wealthy. It will likely cause additional drainage 
problems for the Westlands and other water districts. It will cause 
ocean salt water to come farther inland in the California delta, 
poisoning farmland, destroying marinas, disrupting water supplies for 
cities along the delta, basically destroying the delta as we now know 
it. It will use precious limited water to plant evermore thirsty 
orchards in the desert. And it may expedite the creation of new dams 
with weakened environmental control.
  So let's look at what it won't do. It won't create any new water.
  So why do we have to go through this every 2 years?
  It is good political theater for some colleagues, but it is not going 
to get through the Senate.
  But all may not be lost. Here is a novel suggestion: work across 
party lines, work across northern versus southern California lines, and 
come to a compromise that will actually create new water and take all 
stakeholder interests into account.
  We need to take a holistic approach.
  It means actually funding recycling and above- and below-ground water 
storage that makes environmental sense. It means capturing stormwater, 
early leak detection, data collection, efficiency, and conservation. It 
is all of these things, all of which can be done in a cost-effective 
way that prepares us for the long-term.

[[Page 10482]]

  There are countless recharge, recycling, desalinization projects, as 
well as other storage projects that are ready to go and could create or 
save enough water for thousands of families in California.
  Instead of considering a bill that wastes water and that California 
opposes, we should be discussing how to most efficiently utilize the 
rain and snowpack we have, which can be done while protecting the 
environment.
  Let's oppose this bill and start working on legislation that can be 
signed into law and benefit everyone.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of the bipartisan Western Caucus.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 23, 
legislation sponsored by my good friend and Western Caucus member, 
David Valadao.
  For years, Western communities have suffered as a result of frivolous 
lawsuits, inefficient policies, and burdensome regulations that have 
prevented adoption of commonsense water solutions. These factors, 
coupled with a lack of rainfall, exacerbated a manmade drought that 
lasted for 5 years.
  Rather than capturing precious water supplies, failed government 
policies that refused to put Americans first allowed billions of 
gallons to be funneled into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. 
These deliberate diversions killed thousands of jobs, harmed our 
country's food supply, and led to local unemployment levels as high as 
40 percent.
  Today we have an opportunity to right these wrongs by passing the 
GROW Act, legislation that is supported by approximately 100 different 
cities, agriculture groups, water associations, irrigation districts, 
local chambers of commerce, and businesses throughout the country.
  Most of the major provisions in this bill have been passed by this 
body numerous times. In fact, we have been working to enact similar 
legislation for nearly 5 years.
  For example, title V includes Western Caucus member Tom McClintock's 
Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, an excellent bill that will 
streamline the permitting process for important water storage projects.
  Title VI includes Western Caucus member Dan Newhouse's Bureau of 
Reclamation Water Project Streamlining Act, much-needed legislation 
that will result in increased storage of surface water.
  Title VII includes Western Caucus Vice Chairman Tipton's Water Rights 
Protection Act, an essential bill that protects private water rights 
from Federal takings.
  I strongly support these titles and the underlying bill. It is far 
past time that we put our communities, families, and America first.
  H.R. 23 addresses previous policy failures and adopts worthwhile 
water policies that will benefit future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for sponsoring 
this much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of this commonsense bill.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly respond to my friend's 
reference to a manmade drought.
  What California just went through is what hydrologists, scientists, 
and historians tell us is the most significant drought the State has 
ever experienced--a natural one. I certainly knew that human activities 
were impacting the climate, but, wow, if human beings could actually 
cause the snowpack to be 5 percent of normal and cause a drought like 
that, that is taking human-induced climate change to a whole new level. 
We have got to be careful in this debate. We are beginning to give 
hyperbole a bad name.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi), representing the Sacramento Valley.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we have a serious case of legislative 
amnesia here. Apparently, the sponsors of this bill and those who are 
speaking in support of it have totally forgotten what we did last year. 
The WIIN Act last year addressed every single problem that has been 
presented here this afternoon: new reservoirs, four were authorized in 
the WIIN Act, which became law less than a year ago--7 months, to be 
exact; all of the issues of the outflows of water to the delta were 
addressed so that additional export of water from the delta could 
occur.
  I am wondering: What are we doing here with this piece of 
legislation, aside from totally eviscerating the protections for the 
largest estuary on the West Coast, of the Western Hemisphere? The 
environmental protections are eviscerated.
  What are we doing with this legislation besides--oh, you wanted to 
talk about private water rights? Those private water rights are set in 
place by the laws of the State of California, which are overridden by 
this piece of legislation.
  Yes, that is true. This legislation removes the water rights that the 
State of California has given to individuals as well as irrigation 
districts, but they are stripped away.
  What is this all about?
  Last year, a 2-year effort was completed and the WIIN Act was passed 
by this Congress, signed into law. It is in existence. Reservoirs can 
be built. Water conservation will take place. All of the things that we 
need to do are in place today.
  So why are we fighting this fight? Because we don't know how to stop 
fighting? Because we don't know how to actually implement a law that we 
passed last year?
  And, by the way, where is the funding for all you want to do here? 
There is no money in this. You want to do these things. You want water; 
you want reservoirs--put up the money. Don't just sit here and 
regurgitate what we have done for the last 5 years and totally ignore 
the progress that was made with the WIIN legislation.
  We ought not do this. I am opposed to this, and, hopefully, we will 
find some sensible action.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to address title 
VII of the Water Rights Protection Act in this bill.
  Over many decades, Federal attempts to manipulate Federal permit, 
lease, and land management process to circumvent long-established State 
water law and hijack privately held water rights have sounded the alarm 
for all non-Federal water users that rely on these water rights for 
their livelihood.
  The Federal Government's overreach and infringement on private 
property rights that led to the introduction of this original bill in 
the 113th Congress involved the U.S. Forest Service's attempt to 
require the transfer of privately held water rights to the Federal 
Government as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. With 
this permit condition, there is no compensation for the transfer of 
these privately held rights.
  This Forest Service permit condition has already hurt a number of 
stakeholders in my home State of Colorado, including Powderhorn Ski 
Area in Grand Junction and the Breckenridge Ski Resort. The same 
nefarious tactic has been used in Utah, Nevada, and other Western 
States, where agencies have required the surrender of possession of 
water rights in exchange for approving the conditional use of grazing 
allotments. This Federal water grab has broad implications that have 
begun to extend beyond the recreation and the farming and ranching 
community and are now threatening municipalities and other businesses.
  In 2014, the Forest Service proposed a groundwater directive that 
would have expanded the agency's reach over groundwater and established 
new bureaucratic hurdles to interfere with private water users' ability 
to be able to access their water. Though the Forest Service ultimately 
withdrew this controversial groundwater directive, there are no 
guarantees that the directive or something similar won't be back in the 
future.
  The Water Rights Protection Act offers a sensible approach that 
preserves water rights and the ability to be able to develop water 
requisite to living in

[[Page 10483]]

the arid West without interfering with water allocations for non-
Federal parties or allocations that protect an environment that is 
cherished by all Westerners.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from other 
Western States to ensure that no State-recognized water right goes 
unprotected from the class of actions that this bill prohibits.
  I appreciate the inclusion of this legislation and encourage its 
passage.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera), my colleague from the Sacramento area.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Today, we are debating a 
bill that many of my California colleagues and I have opposed time and 
time again on this House floor.
  This bill allows Washington, D.C., politicians to pick winners and 
losers when it comes to California's water. Now, that is not right. 
This is a partisan bill that is opposed by both California Senators as 
well as our Governor.
  Now, California water is complicated. It is a lot more complicated 
than healthcare. But it should be up to Californians to kind of decide 
how to use our water, what we ought to do with that water.
  Water is incredibly critical to our State. This isn't about picking 
winners and losers. When we think about water, we have certainly got to 
have storage, we certainly know we are going to have conveyance, but we 
have got to do this in a California way.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 23 is going to pit northern California against 
southern California while overriding California's own State laws. The 
bill is also going to gut environmental protections and threaten the 
critical Bay-Delta ecosystem.
  I fish on the Sacramento River, and salmon fishing is incredibly 
important to the State of California as well as the States to the north 
of us. This bill is not going to be a good bill. It is going to 
devastate the fishing industry.
  We also have to think about drinking water for northern California.
  Folsom Dam is in my district and Folsom Lake is in my district. It 
provides not only flood protection, but Folsom Lake provides surface 
drinking water for a lot of my constituents. We tried to put a simple 
amendment in here that would actually protect the quality of that 
drinking water. Unfortunately, H.R. 23 would mandate pumping levels 
that could negatively impact the Folsom Reservoir water supply. That is 
going to place many of my constituents at risk.
  This isn't a good bill. Let's kill this bill. Let's step back. Let 
Californians decide the best way to handle California water. That is 
what we ought to do.
  Again, this bill is dramatic overreach. It is the Federal Government 
stepping into something that the State should actually decide. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in opposing this bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 23.
  Today we have seen pictures, horrible pictures of some of the best 
agricultural land in the world that has been totally destroyed by the 
policies of people who are now claiming that they like the environment 
too much and that that should have, perhaps, something more to do with 
their decisionmaking than what benefits people. Well, what happened is 
we have turned one of the most productive food-producing areas of the 
world into a catastrophe, a desert that produces nothing.
  And who has been in charge of this? Who has been in charge of seeing 
this total destruction of what could be a garden for the people of the 
world? It has been, yes, the Obama administration appointees for the 
last year and, yes, in California, where we have had a leftwing liberal 
Democratic administration appointing radical environmentalists the same 
way Obama appointed radical environmentalists to determine policy.
  And what does that mean to us? It means there is less food being 
produced. It means we have turned productive land into a horrible 
desert that even animals can't exist upon.
  No, it makes a lot of sense right now. What makes sense is that now 
we have gone through this drought and seen this destruction that didn't 
need to happen. What we need to do is build dams. What we need to do is 
to make sure that the water that we now have is being stored properly 
so that the people of our State don't suffer, so that wealth that can 
be grown from the land in central California, which used to be the 
world's breadbasket, that that wealth doesn't just disappear from the 
face of the planet.
  No, you can't really love nature unless you also love people, and 
right now the people of California deserve to have some planning done 
about storing water when we have it rather than suffering and having 
this type of destruction during our droughts.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Responding briefly to a bit of hyperbole just now that somehow 
environmental laws have created a ``desert that produces nothing in 
California,'' we do need to remember the facts.
  The truth is, even through this historic drought, farm employment 
rose statewide each year during the drought. The agricultural economy 
is thriving, and, thankfully, this year, even the most junior Federal 
contractors are enjoying a 100 percent allocation. They are fully 
realizing the vision of being the breadbasket of this country and the 
world. It is hardly a desert that produces nothing.
  With that, I do need to contrast what has been happening on the other 
end of the system, many of the communities I represent, where fishing 
communities really do have nothing.
  The California salmon season this year will be little or nothing. The 
Yurok Tribe that I represent that is dependent on fisheries, salmon 
fisheries in California since long before there was agriculture, will, 
for the second year in a row, close its Tribal fishery. We are seeing 
folks selling their boats. We are seeing fishing communities impacted 
in dramatic ways. There is real genuine hardship, much like what was 
just described by my friend. So the facts do matter.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Bakersfield, California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority 
leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his work when it comes to water in California.
  Mr. Chairman, water is not optional, not in my district, not in 
California, not anywhere. But over the past 5 years, my constituents 
have struggled to survive without life-giving water in the face of a 
catastrophic drought.
  This past winter, heavy rains and snowfall have brought much-needed 
relief. In fact, there was so much water this past winter we ran out of 
room to store it.
  But we cannot always expect a year to bring monsoon-level rains and 
record snow. What happens if next year's rain and snowfall is average, 
or below average, or we have another drought? The Federal and State 
regulations that keep us from pumping and storing water will come back 
to haunt us.
  The water bill passed by this body and signed into law last year was 
a downpayment on California's future. Today's legislation is another 
major investment in our State's future.
  So let's look at pumping. There is no reason--absolutely no reason--
we should prioritize potential benefit to fish over real benefits to 
families. This legislation increases delta pumping and will bring 
immediate relief to two-thirds of California south of the delta.
  But a long-term solution demands more pumping. While California's 
population has doubled since the 1970s, we haven't completed a single 
major storage project in that time.
  Now, that is worth restating. While California's population has 
doubled since the 1970s, we have not completed a single major storage 
project in that time. How can California grow and

[[Page 10484]]

thrive in the future if we depend on inadequate infrastructure from 
nearly 50 years ago?
  Currently, five reservoir projects have been stalled in regulatory 
and red tape for decades. If these reservoirs alone are built, we could 
store between 1 to 1.5 million acre-feet of additional water in our 
State. So we need to build more storage as soon as possible.
  Last year's water bill jumpstarted the process for building new 
reservoirs in California and the West. It was a bipartisan bill, with 
the vote being hundreds of votes out of the House, more than 70 in the 
Senate.
  Today's legislation builds on that by requiring the Federal 
Government to finally finish the feasibility studies for the five 
storage projects in California. Then we reform the permitting process 
so other projects aren't held up for years trying to get approval from 
a dozen different agencies.
  So I want to thank Congressman David Valadao for his hard work, his 
persistence on this issue. Ultimately, American citizens haven't gotten 
the water they need because their government was failing them. Last 
year's bill was the start to change all that. Today, we take another 
major step to bring our communities the water they contract and pay 
for.

                              {time}  1730

  Now, Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear a lot of people on this side 
of the aisle talk about the need from California. Unfortunately, on the 
other side of the aisle, it looks like you will just hear from one. 
That should show you the need and desire of why this bill is so 
important.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is causing the fact checking machines to 
melt down, unfortunately. We just heard that there hasn't been a single 
major storage project in California since the 1970s. That is going to 
come as shocking news to the folks of the Metropolitan Water District 
which completed a huge storage project, Diamond Valley, during that 
period. It will certainly surprise the folks in Contra Costa, which 
completed Los Vaqueros without any special environmental shortcuts and 
with their own financing for the most part. It will surprise local 
water districts around the State, including my own Marin Municipal 
Water District, which completed two dam expansion projects in that same 
timeframe. It will surprise the folks at the current and semitropic 
groundwater banks that expanded significantly groundwater storage 
during that timeframe.
  In fact, the truth is, California has added nearly 6 million acre 
feet of new storage, surface and groundwater storage, over the past few 
decades in this timeframe we have been talking about. So facts really 
do matter.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 23, the GROW Act, which makes important and necessary 
regulatory reforms to allow for better management of water resources 
throughout the West.
  My home State of California recently suffered its worst drought on 
record, which significantly affected the entire State. Families, 
communities, workers, and businesses all made significant sacrifices to 
conserve water and mitigate the drought's impact.
  I applaud the water agencies and residents in my home district of 
Orange County for taking the necessary steps to adapt to the severe 
drought conditions. While substantial rainfall this winter effectively 
ended California's drought, the recent crisis was not just from a lack 
of rain. It is also the result of failed State and Federal policies 
that have mismanaged critical water resources throughout the West.
  The GROW Act is a crucial step toward addressing these failed 
policies. H.R. 23 will help California recover from this devastating 
drought and ensure the State is better equipped to handle future water 
deficiencies.
  In addition to addressing water delivery and water rights issues, the 
bill also facilitates the development of new water storage projects, 
which is a key water management tool for southern California water 
agencies. These projects are critical to a number of California 
communities, like Orange County, that lack the access to water even 
during nondrought conditions. The GROW Act removes regulatory barriers 
from streamlining the permitting and approval process for new 
infrastructure projects.
  Under current law, new water storage construction projects require 
approval from a number of Federal, State, and local agencies. This bill 
provides for a consolidated permitting process that would require 
Federal agencies to conduct coordinated reviews of non-Federal storage 
projects.
  The GROW Act will also expedite feasibility studies for much-needed 
Federal storage projects, some of which have been unnecessarily delayed 
for years.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Knight).
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 23, the 
Gaining Responsibility on Water Act, or GROW Act, which I am a proud 
cosponsor.
  This bill takes an important step in protecting the water security of 
Californians and the food supply integrity of the United States.
  As all of my colleagues from California know, the recent Western 
drought nearly crippled our State's agriculture industry and 
compromised the standard of living for all our constituents by raising 
prices at the grocery stores throughout the country. Mr. Chairman, 
while we can't control the weather, we can take steps to mitigate its 
potentially harmful effects.
  I always like it when people say: Can we just scrap the bill? Or can 
we start over? Or can we work together on that?
  That is just code for: please stop talking about water; please stop 
bringing issues to the floor where we can fix something. And that is 
what we hear today quite frequently.
  One of the most baffling facets of this story is the fact that there 
were readily available water sources that could have been utilized but 
were held up by outdated regulations and red tape. Although we have 
received some relief from the drought this year, it would be a disgrace 
for us as lawmakers not to learn from this ordeal.
  Mr. Chairman, we are blessed to live in the most developed Nation in 
the world where Americans only notice the absence of basic necessities, 
as opposed to other nations where people are found wanting of them.
  Unfortunately, due to the misguided policies of the past, that is the 
situation so many families and businesses find themselves in.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend Mr. Valadao for his continued 
leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 23.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to fact check the fact checker.
  The last major reservoir of over a million acre feet was in 1979. It 
was in New Melones, 2.3 million acre feet. The two reservoirs that the 
gentleman referenced combined are less than a million acre feet. They 
would fill New Melones to less than half of that amount.
  With respect to water salinity, the Bay-Delta Accord, that is 
codified by this bill, guarantees the water necessary to combat salt 
water intrusion.
  And finally, I would point out that, no, dams don't create water. 
Nature creates water. Dams store that water from wet years so that we 
have plenty of it in dry years. That is where we have fallen a 
generation behind in our needs precisely because of the laws that the 
gentleman from California doggedly defends.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the redefinition of ``major water 
storage

[[Page 10485]]

projects.'' It is not a definition that I think is recognized anywhere 
else other than just now on this floor, but I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chair, there are many problems with this bill, and I do want to 
urge my colleagues to oppose it. I can't keep track of the number of 
times the State of California has come up in our debate here these last 
several minutes. So let's look to the State of California and see what 
the State of California says about this bill.
  The Governor of the State of California opposes it in a hard-hitting 
letter that went out to the California delegation and others just a few 
days ago. The new attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, wrote 
an equally critical letter opposing this bill. Both U.S. Senators from 
California oppose this bill.
  It is going nowhere in the Senate and will not become law because of 
fundamental flaws that have been brought up each of the past several 
years that this bill has been introduced in this Congress.
  It overrides California State sovereignty and State water laws in 
ways that are unacceptable to the people of California and to the 
government of California. So when we keep bringing up California, let's 
just be very clear that California doesn't want this bill. California 
opposes this bill.
  Now, I represent the downstream end of some of these water systems 
that we are talking about. When we talk about people and fish and jobs, 
it is important to remember that fishing jobs matter, too. In the 
communities that I represent, and also communities throughout Oregon 
and Washington that depend on California salmon runs, they are hurting.
  This summer we are going to probably see a closure, for all intents 
and purposes, of the commercial salmon season. We are certainly going 
to see a closure of the Yurok Tribal Salmon Fishery for the second year 
in a row. That is not only economically devastating to Tribal 
communities that I represent, it has an emotional impact as well. These 
are communities that are hurting. In fact, the Yurok are reporting 
suicide rates among young people that are alarmingly high. The closure 
of this sacred fishery that is their grocery store, that is a sacred 
part of their existence, is certainly not going to help, and I think 
could very well contribute to the very severe problems that they are 
experiencing.
  Fishing jobs matter, the environment matters, downstream communities 
that depend on this water that would be redistributed and reallocated 
by Congress through this short-sighted bill, that all matters, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this wrong-headed bill, 
and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do what we have been 
inviting them to do each of the past several years, and that is to 
reach across the aisle on bipartisan, commonsense water solutions. 
There is a lot that we could do together. Many of my colleagues served 
with me in the California State legislature. They know, because we did 
it together, that there is a different way. There is a better way.
  We were able to pass landmark, bipartisan water legislation during 
our time together in Sacramento, and we did it because we didn't try to 
pick winners and losers. We found all sorts of low-hanging fruit and 
consensus solutions, and we came up with something that was supported 
across party lines, and in every region of the State. We can do that 
here, too, but we won't do it through this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Abundance or shortage, that is the question. And I want to thank and 
salute Mr. Valadao for his work on this issue and for putting that 
choice so clearly before the House today.
  It is true, we can choose to continue down this sad road that we have 
been on. That means increasingly severe government-induced shortages. 
It means higher and higher water and grocery prices and a permanently 
declining quality of life for our children who will be required to 
stretch and ration every drop of water in their bleak and parched 
homes.
  With this bill, we choose a different future. We choose abundance. We 
choose a future in which water flows again to the fertile fields of the 
Central Valley, providing full employment for families and affordable 
groceries from America's agricultural cornucopia. It is a future in 
which families need not watch their gardens shrivel and die, and towns 
and cities need not fear mandatory water rationing and uncertain and 
unpredictable supplies.
  It is a future in which long-established water rights are safe and 
secure from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. We choose a 
future in which thriving populations of young salmon can swim to the 
sea unmolested by the non-native predators that now kill 90 percent of 
them before they reach the ocean; a future in which new fish hatcheries 
assure the release of millions of additional salmon to supply a revived 
and rapidly expanding commercial fishing industry.
  We choose a future in which great new reservoirs can store vast 
amounts of water in wet years to assure abundance in dry ones; a future 
in which families can enjoy the prosperity that abundant water and 
hydroelectricity and affordable groceries provide, and the quality of 
life that comes from that prosperity. Abundance or shortage? That is 
the question. We choose abundance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 23 because 
it upends decades of State and federal water law and needlessly pits 
water users against one another. On the heels of the worst drought in 
California's history, this bill mandates that certain interests come 
out ahead of others.
  California has just recently emerged from six years of a punishing 
drought that forced every resident to conserve water, caused millions 
of acres of agricultural land to be fallowed, and dramatically 
increased our State's risk of major wildfires. The drought was a 
massive disaster and Congress should respond by investing in long-term 
resilience against future droughts such as water conservation, 
recycling, groundwater recharge, and desalination. What Congress should 
not be doing is using the drought as an excuse to permanently upend a 
century of water law and countless protections for threatened and 
endangered wildlife.
  H.R. 23 weakens or overrides decades of State and federal law, 
including the State and federal Endangered Species Acts; the National 
Environmental Policy Act; the Central Valley Project Improvement Act; 
and the San Joaquin River Settlement Act. This list should set off 
alarm bells for any proponent of States' rights or cooperative 
federalism. For over a century, the Federal Government has deferred to 
State water law whenever possible. The GROW Act unwinds that history 
entirely.
  By discarding a century of water law and species protections, this 
bill will decimate the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem, drive the 
Delta smelt to extinction, and accelerate the decline of the wild 
salmon and steelhead runs which have been an important part of the 
Northern California economy since the mid-19th century.
  This irresponsible bill also overrides science-based management of 
the delicate Delta infrastructure and would gut several of our most 
bedrock environmental laws. For these reasons I strongly oppose this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hill). All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-24. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 23

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gaining Responsibility on 
     Water Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

[[Page 10486]]

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Regulatory streamlining.
Sec. 111. Additional emergency consultation.
Sec. 112. Applicants.
Sec. 113. San Joaquin River settlement.

              TITLE II--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Sec. 201. Studies.
Sec. 202. Temperance Flat.
Sec. 203. Water storage project construction.

                  TITLE III--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

Sec. 301. Offset for State Water Project.
Sec. 302. Area of origin protections.
Sec. 303. No redirected adverse impacts.
Sec. 304. Allocations for Sacramento Valley contractors.
Sec. 305. Effect on existing obligations.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Water supply accounting.
Sec. 402. Operations of the Trinity River Division.
Sec. 403. Report on results of water usage.
Sec. 404. Klamath project consultation applicants.
Sec. 405. CA State Water Resources Control Board.

                  TITLE V--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Establishment of lead agency and cooperating agencies.
Sec. 504. Bureau responsibilities.
Sec. 505. Cooperating agency responsibilities.
Sec. 506. Funding to process permits.

          TITLE VI--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Acceleration of studies.
Sec. 604. Expedited completion of reports.
Sec. 605. Project acceleration.
Sec. 606. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 607. Applicability of WIIN Act.

                   TITLE VII--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Definitions.
Sec. 703. Treatment of water rights.
Sec. 704. Policy development.
Sec. 705. Effect.

           TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.

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

     SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.

       Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING 
     AND CONTRACT REFORM'' and inserting ``CONTRACTS''; and
       (2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
       ``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon 
     request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any 
     existing long-term repayment or water service contract that 
     provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley 
     Project for a period of 40 years.
       ``(b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly 
     provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or 
     water service contract for the delivery of water from the 
     Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the 
     Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
       ``(c) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to this section shall include a provision that 
     requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such 
     contract only for water actually delivered by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND 
                   CONSERVATION.

       Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions 
     to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley 
     Project water in accordance with this Act or any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law and the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and 
     inserting ``or combination'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) The contracting district from which the water is 
     coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a 
     written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after 
     the date of submission of such proposal. If such district or 
     agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is 
     incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall 
     state with specificity what must be added to or revised in 
     order for such proposal to be complete.
       ``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary 
     shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a 
     proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which 
     the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority 
     under State law to approve or condition a proposed 
     transfer.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 
     reclamation law--
       ``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or 
     banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley 
     Project water that could have been conducted before October 
     30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or 
     arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned 
     by this title; and
       ``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the 
     authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central 
     Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30, 
     1992.''.
       (2) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Metering'' and inserting 
     ``Measurement''; and
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The contracting district or agency, not including 
     contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate 
     governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned 
     water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface 
     water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point 
     the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
       (3) By striking subsection (d).
       (4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively.
       (5) By amending subsection (e) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (4))--
       (A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment'' 
     and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
       (B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates 
     applicable to''; and
       (C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by 
     the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices 
     established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.

     SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.

       Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and 
     inserting ``may'';
       (ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to 
     provide'';
       (iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and 
     inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
       (iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting 
     ``Reasonable instream flow'';
       (v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service''; 
     and
       (vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game'' 
     and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting 
     ``purposes'';
       (ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional 
     obligations''; and
       (iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All 
     Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified 
     in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of 
     Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this 
     paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of 
     such water would affect the delivery capability of the 
     Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period 
     after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational 
     requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in 
     licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the 
     Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law 
     existing on October 30, 1992, have been met. To the fullest 
     extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central 
     Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's 
     remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley 
     Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial 
     purposes.''; and
       (C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:

[[Page 10487]]

       ``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central 
     Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water 
     service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the 
     Central Valley Project is below 75 percent of the total 
     quantity of water to be made available under said contracts, 
     the quantity of Central Valley Project yield dedicated and 
     managed for that year under this paragraph shall be reduced 
     by 25 percent.''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities 
     described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to 
     have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and 
     enhancement purposes of this title.''.

     SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley 
     Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is 
     hereby''.
       (2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that 
     follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or 
     indirectly require a donation or other payment to the 
     Restoration Fund--
       ``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not 
     otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
       ``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
     Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation 
     laws; or
       ``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the 
     Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-293; 96 Stat. 
     1270); or
       ``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent 
     of groundwater recharge.''.
       (b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
       (2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
       (3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all 
     activities described in this title.''.
       (c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration 
     Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project 
     Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October 
     1, 2016, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project 
     power sold to power contractors (October 2016 price levels)'' 
     after ``$12 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for 
     municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the 
     Central Valley Project''.
       (d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by 
     inserting ``no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That 
     upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat 
     mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section 
     3406 of this title,''.
       (e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board, shall submit to Congress a 
     plan for the expenditure of all of the funds deposited into 
     the Restoration Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such 
     plan shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each 
     expenditure.
       ``(h) Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the 
     Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members 
     selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of 
     whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The 
     members shall be selected so as to represent the various 
     Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be 
     from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and 
     industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two 
     at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to 
     act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
       ``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as 
     follows:
       ``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and 
     spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant 
     to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
       ``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by 
     the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent 
     judgment of the Advisory Board.
       ``(C) Not later than December 31, 2018, and annually 
     thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress 
     recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Not later than December 31, 2018, and biennially 
     thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the 
     progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section 
     3406.
       ``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate 
     agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and 
     services of any Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of 
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of 
     Water.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter 
     into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this 
     title with any Federal agency, California water user or water 
     agency, State agency, or private organization for the 
     exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of 
     nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish 
     and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public 
     Law 99-546 (100 Stat. 3051).
       ``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary 
     shall use the authority granted by this subsection in 
     connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project 
     facilities for any beneficial purpose.
       ``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to 
     exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs 
     incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial 
     purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to 
     a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such 
     purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other 
     payment to the Restoration Fund.
       ``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and 
     implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central 
     Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry, 
     or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the 
     Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting 
     ``Natural Resources'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan 
     required by subsection (j)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and 
     adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the 
     committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the 
     Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
       (c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
       (2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if 
     any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to 
     minimize adverse effects upon''.
       (3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that 
     follows through ``submit to the Congress, a'' and inserting 
     ``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later 
     than September 30, 2018, shall submit to Congress a''.
       (4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through 
     ``options:'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible 
     but not later than September 30, 2017 (except for the 
     construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by 
     that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by 
     the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife 
     purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the 
     purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying 
     contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection 
     shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing 
     arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures 
     needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of 
     this subsection and a description of how the Secretary 
     intends to use the following options--''.
       (5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of 
     new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
       (6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
       (7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all 
     that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting 
     ``; and''.
       (8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
       (9) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall 
     implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on 
     October 1, 2017. In order to carry out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in 
     implementing measures for the long-term resolution of 
     problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
     Delta Estuary.
       ``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30, 
     2018, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase 
     the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project 
     by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory 
     action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the 
     plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability 
     of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
       (d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central 
     Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
       (e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, 
     may partner or enter into an agreement on the water storage 
     projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 
     108-361) (and Acts supplemental and amendatory to the Act) 
     with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant to State 
     law by irrigation districts and other local water districts 
     and local governments

[[Page 10488]]

     within the applicable hydrologic region, to advance these 
     projects. No additional Federal funds are authorized for the 
     activities authorized in sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-
     361. However, each water storage project under sections 
     103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of 
     Public Law 108-361 is authorized for construction if non-
     Federal funds are used for financing and constructing the 
     project.

     SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.

       (a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley 
     Project and California State Water Project Operations.--The 
     Central Valley Project and the State Water Project shall be 
     operated pursuant to the water quality standards and 
     operational constraints described in the ``Principles for 
     Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 
     1994, and such operations shall proceed without regard to the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or 
     any other law pertaining to the operation of the Central 
     Valley Project and the California State Water Project. 
     Implementation of this section shall be in strict conformance 
     with the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta 
     Standards Between the State of California and the Federal 
     Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
       (b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal 
     department nor the State of California, including any agency 
     or board of the State of California, shall impose on any 
     water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-
     1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts the 
     exercise of that water right in order to conserve, enhance, 
     recover or otherwise protect any species that is affected by 
     operations of the Central Valley Project or California State 
     Water Project. Nor shall the State of California, including 
     any agency or board of the State of California, restrict the 
     exercise of any water right obtained pursuant to State law, 
     including a pre-1914 appropriative right, in order to 
     protect, enhance, or restore under the Public Trust Doctrine 
     any public trust value. Implementation of the ``Principles 
     for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of 
     California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 
     1994, shall be in strict compliance with the water rights 
     priority system and statutory protections for areas of 
     origin.
       (c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of 
     this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any 
     Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or 
     entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
       (d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted 
     with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of 
     nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more 
     native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San 
     Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Rivers Delta.

     SEC. 109. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.

       After the date of the enactment of this title, and 
     regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the 
     Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
     spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially 
     propagated strains of a species in making any determination 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) that relates to any anadromous fish species present in 
     the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries 
     and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce 
     after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.

     SEC. 110. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.

       (a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of 
     Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project, 
     including the issuance of a permit under State law, related 
     to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom 
     in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act 
     shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C) 
     of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
       (b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation 
     shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal 
     action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or 
     the delivery of water therefrom pending completion of 
     judicial review of any determination made under the National 
     Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
       (c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) CVP.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley 
     Project.
       (2) Project.--The term ``project''--
       (A) means an activity that--
       (i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public 
     agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public 
     agency;
       (ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the 
     environment; and
       (iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by 
     governmental agencies;
       (B) may include construction activities, clearing or 
     grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and 
     activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit; 
     or
       (C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality 
     Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.

     SEC. 111. ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY CONSULTATION.

       For adjustments to operating criteria other than under 
     section 108 or to take urgent actions to address water supply 
     shortages for the least amount of time or volume of diversion 
     necessary as determined by the Commissioner of Reclamation, 
     no mitigation measures shall be required during any year that 
     the Sacramento Valley index is 6.5 or lower, or at the 
     request of the State of California, and until two succeeding 
     years following either of those events have been completed 
     where the final Sacramento Valley Index is 7.8 or greater, 
     and any mitigation measures imposed must be based on 
     quantitative data and required only to the extent that such 
     data demonstrates actual harm to species.

     SEC. 112. APPLICANTS.

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

     SEC. 113. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.

       (a) Purpose and Findings.--
       (1) Purpose and findings.--Section 10002 of the San Joaquin 
     River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 10002. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this part is to authorize 
     implementation of the Settlement.
       ``(b) Findings.--Congress finds that since the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the following conditions now persist 
     with regard to implementation of the Settlement:
       ``(1) Millions of dollars of economic damages have occurred 
     due to seepage from rivers flows and other impacts to third 
     parties affected by the Settlement and San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Program and such impacts will continue for the 
     duration of the Settlement and Restoration Program 
     implementation.
       ``(2) Estimated costs of implementing the Settlement have 
     more than doubled from the initial estimates for implementing 
     the Settlement, from a high-end estimate of $800,000,000 to 
     more than $1,700,000,000, due to unrealistic initial cost 
     estimates, additional, unanticipated cost increases related 
     to damages to land from seepage and to infrastructure from 
     subsidence, and from increased construction costs to complete 
     channel improvements, and other improvements not originally 
     identified, but anticipated in the Settlement as necessary to 
     implement the Restoration Goal.
       ``(3) Achievement of the Settlement's Water Management 
     Goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to Friant 
     Division long-term contractors, including the Friant-Kern 
     Canal and Madera Canal capacity restoration projects have not 
     progressed and are likely impossible given available and 
     likely future funding and regulatory constraints.
       ``(4) Implementation of the Settlement's Restoration Goal 
     has already fallen short of the schedule agreed to by the 
     Settling Parties and Congress, which required the 
     reintroduction of Spring-run and Fall-run Chinook salmon in 
     the river by December 31, 2012, and the majority of Paragraph 
     11 improvements construction to be complete by December 31, 
     2013, with the remainder of the paragraph (11) improvements 
     to be completed by December 31, 2016, neither of which 
     deadlines have been met and the Secretary has now made 
     findings that such improvements will not be completed until 
     2030 at the earliest and likely beyond that timeframe, which 
     schedule assumes full funding of the Restoration Program, 
     which has not occurred.
       ``(5) Catastrophic species declines in the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta and other changed conditions have affected the 
     Friant Division's water supply in ways unimagined during the 
     time of the Settlement's signing, resulting in additional 
     reductions in water supply for the Friant Division beyond 
     what was agreed to in the Settlement.
       ``(6) Recent scientific assessments of likely future 
     climate change suggest that no amount of additional flow in 
     the San Joaquin River will sustain Spring-run Chinook salmon, 
     one of the target species for maintaining a self-sustaining 
     population below Friant Dam.
       ``(7) In consideration of existing conditions, it is not 
     reasonable, prudent and feasible to implement the Settlement 
     as originally authorized.''.
       (2) Definitions.--Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The term `Exchange Contractors' means San Joaquin 
     River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, whose members are 
     the Central California Irrigation District, Columbia Canal 
     Company, the Firebaugh Canal Water District, and the San Luis 
     Canal Company.
       ``(5) The term `Governor' means the Governor of the State 
     of California.
       ``(6) The term `Gravelly Ford' means the Gravelly Ford 
     gaging station in the San Joaquin River located at 
     approximately River Mile 230.
       ``(7) The term `Restoration Area' means the San Joaquin 
     River between Friant Dam and the Merced River confluence, and 
     generally within 1,500 feet of the centerline of the river.
       ``(8) The term `Restoration Flow' means the hydrograph 
     flows (as provided in paragraph 18 and exhibit B of the 
     Settlement), buffer flows of up to 10 percent of the 
     applicable hydrograph flows, and any additional water 
     acquired by the Secretary of the Interior from willing 
     sellers to meet the Restoration Goal of the Settlement.
       ``(9) The term `Restoration Fund' means that fund 
     established by this part.

[[Page 10489]]

       ``(10) The term `Sack Dam' means a low-head earth and 
     concrete structure with wooden flap gates that diverts San 
     Joaquin River flows into the Arroyo Canal at approximately 
     River Mile 182.1.
       ``(11) The term `Warm Water Fishery' means a water system 
     that has an environment suitable for species of fish other 
     than salmon (including any subspecies) and trout (including 
     all subspecies).
       ``(12) The term `third party' means the Exchange 
     Contractors or any member thereof, current or former members 
     of the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, and current or 
     former members of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water 
     Authority.''; and
       (3) Implementation of settlement.--Section 10004 of the San 
     Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (f), by striking ``pursuant to the 
     Settlement and section 10011'' and inserting ``or other 
     species for any reason'';
       (B) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or the implementation 
     of the Settlement and the reintroduction of California 
     Central Valley Spring Run Chinook salmon or any other 
     species,'' after ``nothing in this part'';
       (C) in subsection (h)--
       (i) in the header by striking ``Interim'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) by striking ``Interim Flows'' and inserting ``Flows'' 
     each place it appears;
       (II) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting ``which shall be 
     implemented'' after ``significant''; and
       (III) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``as a result of the 
     Interim Flows'' and inserting ``or State laws as a result of 
     Flows.''; and

       (iii) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Conditions for release.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to release Flows--
       ``(A) if all improvements and mitigation measures are 
     completed or implemented, including all actions necessary to 
     mitigate impacts on landowners, water agencies, and water 
     users; and
       ``(B) if such Flows will not exceed existing downstream 
     channel capacities.
       ``(3) Seepage impacts.--(A) The Secretary, in implementing 
     this Act, shall not cause material adverse impacts to third 
     parties. The Secretary shall reduce Flows to the extent 
     necessary to address any material adverse impacts to third 
     parties from groundwater seepage or levee instability caused 
     by such flows identified based on the monitoring program of 
     the Secretary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Secretary 
     shall not directly or indirectly cause groundwater to rise 
     above 10 feet below ground surface and shall provide at least 
     10 feet below ground surface as a minimum threshold elevation 
     for groundwater beneath any fields where permanent or other 
     deep rooted crops are grown, and at least 6 feet below ground 
     surface as a minimum threshold elevation for groundwater 
     beneath any fields where annual or shallow rooted crops are 
     grown. These minimum thresholds shall be adjusted yearly 
     based upon information provided by individual landowners 
     regarding the minimum threshold that they will need in order 
     to grow their crop(s) that year. If during the course of the 
     year the landowner informs the Secretary that detrimental 
     seepage is being experienced or is reasonably likely to occur 
     despite the adherence to the minimum threshold, the Secretary 
     shall reduce Restoration Flows to a volume sufficient to 
     reduce seepage impacts by reducing the occurrence of 
     groundwater to a non-damaging level below ground surface.
       ``(B) If Flow reduction alone is not sufficient to mitigate 
     for seepage impacts the Secretary shall mitigate by real 
     estate transaction or installation of physical measures, 
     whichever option is requested by the landowner.
       ``(C) Any water that seeps onto private property shall 
     thereupon become the property of that landowner if the 
     landowner takes control of the water including by re-
     diverting it to the San Joaquin River. If seepage water is 
     returned to the San Joaquin River it shall meet applicable 
     water quality requirements.
       ``(4) Temporary fish barrier program.--Using funds 
     otherwise available from the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Fund if necessary, the Secretary is authorized to make 
     improvements to the Hills Ferry Barrier or any replacement 
     thereof in order to prevent upstream migration of any 
     protected species to the restoration area. The Secretary is 
     further authorized to work with the California Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife for the improvement or replacement of the 
     Hills Ferry Barrier in order to prevent the upstream 
     migration of any protected species. If third parties south of 
     the confluence with the Merced River are required to install 
     their screens or fish bypass facilities in order to comply 
     with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Secretary shall 
     bear the costs of such screens or facilities, except to the 
     extent that such costs are already or are further willingly 
     borne by the State of California or by the third parties. 
     Expenditures by Reclamation are non-reimbursable. Any 
     protected species recovered at the Hills Ferry Barrier or in 
     the Restoration Area or any river or false pathways thereto 
     that is to be relocated outside of the Restoration Area shall 
     only be relocated to an area where there is an established 
     self-sustaining population of that same genotype or 
     phenotype.''; and
       (D) by amending subsection (j) to read as follows:
       ``(j) San Joaquin River Exchange Contract and Related.--
     Subject to section 10006(b), nothing in this part shall 
     modify or amend the rights and obligations under the Purchase 
     Contract between Miller and Lux and the United States 
     including without exclusion of others, any right to enforce 
     the power contracts identified in the Purchase Contract, the 
     Second Amended Exchange Contract between the United States, 
     Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and Central 
     California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, 
     Firebaugh Canal Water District, and Columbia Canal Company. 
     Prior to releasing any restoration flow, the Secretary shall 
     determine that such release will not affect its contractual 
     obligations to the Exchange Contractors.''.
       (4) Acquisition of property.--Section 10005 of the San 
     Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) 
     is amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Acquisition of Property.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to acquire property solely through purchase from willing 
     sellers any property, interests in property, or options to 
     acquire real property needed to implement the Settlement 
     authorized by this part. The Secretary shall not acquire 
     property through the exercise of eminent domain unless the 
     owner of said property does not object to an eminent domain 
     action.
       ``(c) Disposal of Property.--Any property or interests 
     therein acquired by the Secretary and for which the Secretary 
     determines that the property or interest therein is no longer 
     needed to be held by the United States for the furtherance of 
     the Settlement, shall be first offered for repurchase to the 
     prior owner of the property from whom the United States 
     acquired the property and at the same price for which the 
     United States acquired the property unless it is demonstrated 
     that the property has decreased in value in which case the 
     Secretary shall sell the property back to the prior owner at 
     the decreased price. If the prior owner does not want the 
     property, the Secretary shall sell the property on the open 
     market.''.
       (5) Compliance with applicable law.--Section 10006 of the 
     San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-
     11) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``as necessary'' and 
     inserting ``as necessary, as provided for in this part and in 
     a manner that does not conflict with the intent of Congress 
     as expressed in this title which intent shall be afforded the 
     greatest deference and any difference or ambiguity shall be 
     resolved in favor of said intent'' before the period at the 
     end; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Any statutory exemptions from conducting environmental 
     review or consultation are not applicable.'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (e) below, nothing''; and
       (ii) by striking ``State law.'' and inserting ``State law, 
     except as otherwise provided for herein or would conflict 
     with achieving the purposes or intent of this title.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) In General.--Sections 5930 through 5948 of the 
     California Fish and Game Code and all applicable Federal 
     laws, including this part, as amended by the Gaining 
     Responsibility on Water Act of 2017, and the Stipulation of 
     Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk 
     Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-
     88-1658--LKK/GGH), shall be satisfied by implementation of 
     the Settlement as provided in section 10014(b) or the plan 
     provided in section 10014(a) of the Gaining Responsibility on 
     Water Act of 2017.
       ``(f) Compliance With Existing Friant Division Contracts.--
     Congress hereby finds and declares that compliance with the 
     provisions of this Act by Friant Division Contractors shall 
     fulfill all requirements for compliance with this part, 
     contained in contracts between the Secretary and Friant 
     Division Contractors.''.
       (6) No private right of action.--Section 10008(a) of the 
     San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-
     11) is amended by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting 
     ``the Settlement or a third party''.
       (7) Settlement fund.--Section 10009 of the San Joaquin 
     River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (3) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Limitation.--Except as provided in the Settlement, to 
     the extent that costs incurred solely to implement this 
     Settlement would not otherwise have been incurred by any 
     entity or public or local agency or subdivision of the State 
     of California, such costs shall not be borne by any such 
     entity, agency, or subdivision of the State of California, 
     unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis. Any 
     appropriations by Congress to implement this part shall be on 
     the basis of line item authorizations and appropriations and 
     shall not be part of the programmatic funding for the 
     Secretary or the Bureau of Reclamation.''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Reach 4B.--No Restoration Flows released shall be 
     routed through section 4B of the San Joaquin River. The 
     Secretary shall seek to make use of modified and/or existing 
     conveyance facilities such as flood control channels in order 
     to provide conveyance for the restoration flows. Congress 
     finds that such use of multi-use facilities is more 
     economical and cost-effective than seeking to restore certain 
     sections of the San Joaquin River. The Secretary shall 
     provide non-reimbursable funding for the incremental increase 
     in maintenance costs for use of the flood control channels.
       ``(g) No Impact on Water Supplies.--Re-introduction or 
     migration of species to the San

[[Page 10490]]

     Joaquin River upstream of the confluence with the Merced 
     River made possible by or aided by the existence of 
     restoration flows or any improvements to the river made 
     hereunder shall not result in water supply reductions, 
     additional storage releases, or bypass flows on unwilling 
     third parties due to such re-introduction.
       ``(h) No Transference of Liability.--Congress finds that 
     the Federal interest in the restoration of the San Joaquin 
     River upstream of the confluence with the Merced River has 
     been satisfied with regard to the development of the Friant 
     Division, Delta Mendota canal, the continued performance of 
     and compliance with the terms of agreements of the United 
     States to purchase water rights and for exchange of water, 
     its Agreements with the entities that comprise the Exchange 
     Contractors to deliver their water rights in the San Joaquin 
     River pursuant to the terms of the agreements. The enactment 
     of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, together 
     with findings in this legislation including the Settling 
     Parties and agencies of the State of California tried to 
     implement the Restoration Program for ten years and the 
     Bureau of Reclamation has stated it will take at least 
     another 15 years to implement assuming full funding is 
     provided, even though that full funding has never been 
     provided since the Settlement was executed or the Restoration 
     Act enacted, and that absent implementation of that funding, 
     there is no possibility of establishing a viable self-
     sustaining salmonid population and the restoration of the 
     upper San Joaquin River has proven infeasible on terms 
     originally conceived by the parties to the Settlement and 
     Congress in the Restoration Act. Therefore, notwithstanding 
     that the United States and water users and agencies within 
     the Friant Division are released of any existing or future 
     obligations with regard to the Restoration Program, or any 
     similar program, no responsibility for achieving the goals of 
     the Restoration Program, including the provision of flows and 
     the re-introduction of salmon, or other fish species to the 
     San Joaquin River, shall be imposed on the United States, 
     upon the Exchange Contractors or any of its members nor shall 
     the rights to delivery of water reserved to the Exchange 
     Contractors by any agency of the United States or the State 
     of California be abridged or impaired.
       ``(i) Absence of Agreement.--In the absence of an agreement 
     with Friant Division long-term contractors, in the event the 
     State of California, acting through the State Water Resources 
     Control Board or otherwise, or any other party requires the 
     flow of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to exceed the 
     amounts stated in Exhibit B of the Settlement, then the 
     authorization to implement the Settlement as provided in this 
     Act shall terminate and the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     cease any action to implement this part and the Stipulation 
     of Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. 
     Kirk Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. 
     Civ-S-88-1658 LLK/GGH); provided, further, the Secretary 
     shall also cease to collect or expend any funds from the San 
     Joaquin River Restoration Fund.''.
       (b) Review and Determination.--San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 10012. REVIEW AND DETERMINATION.

       ``(a) Determination Required.--The Governor and the 
     Secretary, shall determine, in consideration of the overall 
     public interest of both the State of California and the 
     Nation, if it is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to 
     implement the Settlement as provided in section 10014(b) and 
     shall submit a joint report to Congress not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, stating their 
     findings and recommended action, including--
       ``(1) financial considerations;
       ``(2) available scientific evidence;
       ``(3) water temperature in the lower reaches of the upper 
     San Joaquin River; and
       ``(4) alternative uses for the funds required to implement 
     the Settlement.
       ``(b) Absence of Timely Determination.--If the Governor and 
     the Secretary, do not provide a joint recommendation within 
     the time specified in subsection (a), then it shall be deemed 
     that implementing the Settlement consistent with section 
     10014(b) is not reasonable, prudent, and feasible, and the 
     Secretary shall proceed to implement the Settlement 
     consistent with section 10014(a).

     ``SEC. 10013. INTERIM OPERATIONS.

       ``Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Gaining 
     Responsibility on Water Act of 2017 and continuing until a 
     determination and final plan has been developed and approved 
     by the Secretary and Governor as provided under section 
     10014(b), and if applicable, the warm water fishery plan 
     developed under section 10014(a), the Secretary shall only 
     take the following actions to implement the Settlement 
     according to the this Act:
       ``(1) Implementation of the Restoration Goal and the Water 
     Management Goal of the Settlement only to the extent 
     consistent with section 10014(b).
       ``(2) No Restoration Flow releases shall be permitted on 
     the San Joaquin River downstream of Sack Dam to the 
     confluence with the Merced River.
       ``(3) No salmonids shall be placed into or allowed to 
     migrate to the Restoration Area. If any salmonids are caught 
     at the Hills Ferry Barrier, they shall be salvaged to the 
     extent feasible and returned to an area where there is a 
     viable sustainable salmonid population of substantially the 
     same genotype or phenotype.
       ``(4) Implementation of a plan to recirculate, recapture, 
     reuse, exchange and transfer Restoration Flows for the 
     purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts to water deliveries 
     to all Friant Division long-term contractors caused by the 
     Restoration Flows , to the greatest extent feasible.

     ``SEC. 10014. ALTERNATE LONG-TERM ACTIONS.

       ``(a) Gravelly Ford-Warm Water Fishery.--
       ``(1) If it is determined under section 10012(a) that the 
     Settlement should not be implemented as provided in 
     subsection (b), then not later than 1 year after such 
     determination, the Secretary and the Governor shall develop 
     and approve a reasonable, prudent, and feasible plan for 
     maintaining a warm water fishery on the San Joaquin River 
     below Friant Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford, consistent 
     with the following:
       ``(A) No water shall be released into the San Joaquin River 
     for fishery purposes downstream of Gravelly Ford.
       ``(B) Existing and future contributions to the Restoration 
     Fund shall be expended for the purposes of--
       ``(i) warm water fishery improvements within the San 
     Joaquin River channel upstream of Gravelly Ford; and
       ``(ii) water and fishery improvements in the San Joaquin 
     River channel downstream of the confluence with the Merced 
     River and other areas for benefit of fall run salmon.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall establish a fund to be jointly 
     administered by the Friant Water Authority, Exchange 
     Contractors, San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, and San Luis 
     Delta Mendota Water Authority to fund restoration actions 
     along the San Joaquin River and its tributaries that achieve 
     water quality objectives for the protection of fish and 
     wildlife. The Secretary shall transfer the following into the 
     fund:
       ``(i) All funds in the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund 
     authorized by this part.
       ``(ii) All future payments by Friant Division long-term 
     contractors pursuant to section 3406(c)(1) of the Reclamation 
     Projects, Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4721) as provided in the Settlement.
       ``(D) In the absence of an agreement with Friant Division 
     long-term contractors, in the event the State of California, 
     acting through the State Water Resources Control Board or 
     otherwise, or any other party requires the flow of the San 
     Joaquin River to continue below Gravelly Ford for fish and 
     wildlife purposes then--
       ``(i) all funding specified for transfer under this 
     subsection shall cease, and any funds remaining in the San 
     Joaquin River Basin Restoration Fund shall be transferred to 
     the Friant Water Authority for implementing conveyance 
     improvements on the Friant Kern Canal and Madera Canal to 
     mitigate for subsidence impacts since their original 
     construction; and
       ``(ii) the authorization to implement the Settlement as 
     provided in this part, as amended by the Gaining 
     Responsibility on Water Act of 2017, shall terminate and the 
     Secretary shall cease any action to implement this part and 
     the Stipulation of Settlement (Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of 
     California, No. Civ-S-88-1658 LLK/GGH); provided, further, 
     the Secretary shall also cease to collect or expend any funds 
     from the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund.
       ``(b) Continued Implementation.--If, in the decision 
     required by section 10012(a), it is determined that the 
     Settlement should continue to be implemented as provided in 
     section 10014(b), then the following terms are required for 
     Continued Implementation of Settlement and no funds shall be 
     expended to implement the Settlement other than as provided 
     for herein:
       ``(1) Improvements.--The improvements described in 
     paragraph (11) of the Settlement and any additional 
     improvements identified in the Framework for Implementation 
     published in 2015 and any successors thereto shall be 
     completed before any Restoration Flows are released to the 
     San Joaquin River.
       ``(2) Priority projects.--The improvements shall be 
     constructed in the following order:
       ``(A) Mendota Pool bypass and fish screen.
       ``(B) Arroyo Canal fish screen and Sack Dam fish passage 
     facilities.
       ``(C) Seepage mitigation actions to allow Restoration Flows 
     of up to 4500 CFS such that there will be no involuntarily 
     incurred damage to private property and no damage to levees.
       ``(3) Other improvements.--The remainder of the 
     Improvements shall be constructed in an order deemed 
     appropriate by the Secretary after the foregoing projects are 
     completed.
       ``(4) Construction assistance.--If agreed to by the 
     Exchange Contractors or any of its members, the Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Exchange Contractors 
     or any of its members to assume construction responsibility 
     from initial design through completion of such improvements 
     as the Exchange Contractors or any of its members may agree 
     to, provided that the Secretary shall retain financial 
     responsibility for such improvements and shall reimburse the 
     Exchange Contractors or any of its members for costs incurred 
     by them and their contractors, if any, expended in the 
     construction of the improvements. The Secretary shall enter 
     into a construction agreement with the Exchange Contractors 
     or its members, as applicable, and subject to their approval, 
     consistent with the terms of this title.
       ``(5) Technical advisory committee and restoration 
     administrator.--The Secretary shall add to the Technical 
     Advisory Committee (TAC), established pursuant to the 
     Settlement, one representative from the Exchange Contractors 
     and one representative from the San Luis &

[[Page 10491]]

     Delta-Mendota Water Authority. Any decisions and/or 
     recommendations made by the Restoration Administrator shall 
     be first discussed with the TAC and made on the basis of 
     consensus to maximum extent possible. Any recommendations 
     made by the Restoration Administrator are advisory only, 
     shall be in writing, shall include references to the science 
     relied on and specify the benefits to fish in the river, and 
     include the level of consensus reached by the TAC. The 
     Secretary's final decision on any action, including flows, 
     can deviate from the Restoration Administrator's 
     recommendation provided that the Secretary's final decision 
     is based upon sound and objective science, and is otherwise 
     consistent with this title.
       ``(6) Restoration flows.--The appropriate level of 
     Restoration Flows under any circumstance shall be no greater 
     than that set forth in the hydrographs attached as exhibit B 
     to the Settlement, and shall be no greater than the real-time 
     fishery needs required to meet the Restoration Goal. The 
     Secretary shall make the final decision as to the appropriate 
     level of Restoration Flows and other actions regarding 
     implementation of the Restoration Program. The appropriate 
     level of Restoration Flows shall at a minimum not exceed 
     channel capacity, cause seepage damage, or be inconsistent 
     with any other requirements in this section. The Secretary's 
     decisions and those of the Secretary of Commerce shall be 
     fully supported by the best commercial and scientific 
     information available, shall be made in an open and 
     transparent manner, and shall be based on objective 
     information capable of replication.
       ``(7) Fish reintroduction.--No fishery shall be introduced 
     or placed for any reason in to the San Joaquin River upstream 
     of the Merced River, until Reclamation has released 
     Restoration Flows down the San Joaquin River in each 
     hydrologic year type: wet, above normal, below normal, dry, 
     and critically dry and determined that the improvements are 
     fully functional and that seepage impacts have been fully 
     mitigated. At least 180 days before the introduction of 
     spring run Chinook salmon the Bureau of Reclamation shall 
     submit a report to Congress that provides a critical 
     examination of the impact of Restoration Flows on seepage and 
     the improvements, and the likelihood of success in restoring 
     a salmon fishery that is viable, sustainable and capable of 
     volitional passage.
       ``(8) Protected species.--Any protected species migrating 
     into the Restoration Area shall be deemed to be a 
     nonessential experimental population. Congress finds that due 
     to human-caused physical changes to the pathways of the San 
     Joaquin River upstream of the confluence of the Merced River 
     the San Joaquin River is deemed a distinct and separate 
     geographic area and no agency shall take any action pursuant 
     to any authority or requirement of the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or any other Federal or 
     State species protection law that will have an adverse impact 
     on landowners or water agencies within the Restoration Area 
     unless such impacts are incurred on a voluntary basis.
       ``(9) Subsidence.--Prior to implementing any other actions, 
     the Secretary shall work with local water districts and 
     landowners to ensure the actions include appropriate 
     solutions to past and likely future subsidence. Without 
     resolution to the subsidence issue, the improvements 
     described in the Settlement and the San Joaquin River and/or 
     the flood control system will continue to be irreparability 
     damaged. Any costs incurred by the Secretary, including but 
     not limited to acquisition of property from willing sellers 
     shall be non-reimbursable.
       ``(10) Full funding.--Prior to commencing construction of 
     any Improvement, the Secretary shall approve a funding plan 
     that demonstrates that the United States has obtained all 
     authorizations for appropriations combined with other 
     authorized and reasonably foreseeable funding sources 
     necessary for the orderly completion of all improvements 
     described in paragraph (11) of the Settlement and any 
     additional improvements identified in the Framework for 
     Implementation published in 2015, including any amendments 
     thereto.
       ``(11) Mitigation of impacts.--Prior to the implementation 
     of decisions or agreements to construct, improve, operate, or 
     maintain Improvements. or facilities that the Secretary 
     determines are needed to implement the Settlement, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) identify the impacts associated with such actions;
       ``(B) identify the actions that the Secretary must 
     implement to mitigate any impacts on water users and 
     landowners in the Restoration Area; and
       ``(C) shall implement all of the mitigation actions so as 
     to eliminate or reduce to an immaterial effect any adverse 
     impacts on water users and landowners.''.

              TITLE II--CALFED STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDIES

     SEC. 201. STUDIES.

       The Secretary of the Interior, through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation, shall--
       (1) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses 
     (i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 
     108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the 
     appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate not later than November 30, 2018;
       (2) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (i)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2018;
       (3) complete a publicly available draft of the feasibility 
     study described in clause (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of 
     Public Law 108-361 and submit such study to the appropriate 
     committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate not 
     later than November 30, 2018;
       (4) complete the feasibility study described in clause 
     (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than November 30, 
     2019;
       (5) complete the feasibility study described in section 
     103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and 
     submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31, 
     2019;
       (6) in conducting any feasibility study under this Act, the 
     reclamation laws, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
     (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4706), the Fish 
     and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 
     other applicable law, for the purposes of determining 
     feasibility the Secretary shall document, delineate, and 
     publish costs directly relating to the engineering and 
     construction of a water storage project separately from the 
     costs resulting from regulatory compliance or the 
     construction of auxiliary facilities necessary to achieve 
     regulatory compliance; and
       (7) communicate, coordinate and cooperate with public water 
     agencies that contract with the United States for Central 
     Valley Project water and that are expected to participate in 
     the cost pools that will be created for the projects proposed 
     in the feasibility studies under this section.

     SEC. 202. TEMPERANCE FLAT.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Temperance 
     Flat Reservoir Project on the Upper San Joaquin River.
       (2) RMP.--The term ``RMP'' means the document titled 
     ``Bakersfield Field Office, Record of Decision and Approved 
     Resource Management Plan'', dated December 2014.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Applicability of RMP.--The RMP and findings related 
     thereto shall have no effect on or applicability to the 
     Secretary's determination of feasibility of, or on any 
     findings or environmental review documents related to--
       (1) the Project; or
       (2) actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     103(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of the Bay-Delta Authorization Act 
     (title I of Public Law 108-361).
       (c) Duties of Secretary Upon Determination of 
     Feasibility.--If the Secretary finds the Project to be 
     feasible, the Secretary shall manage the land recommended in 
     the RMP for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) in a manner that does not impede any 
     environmental reviews, preconstruction, construction, or 
     other activities of the Project, regardless of whether or not 
     the Secretary submits any official recommendation to Congress 
     under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
       (d) Reserved Water Rights.--Effective December 22, 2017, 
     there shall be no Federal reserved water rights to any 
     segment of the San Joaquin River related to the Project as a 
     result of any designation made under the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. WATER STORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.

       The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, may partner or 
     enter into an agreement on the water storage projects 
     identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply 
     Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 
     108-361) (and Acts supplemental and amendatory to the Act) 
     with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant to State 
     law by irrigation districts and other local water districts 
     and local governments within the applicable hydrologic 
     region, to advance those projects.

                  TITLE III--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 301. OFFSET FOR STATE WATER PROJECT.

       (a) Implementation Impacts.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall confer with the California Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife in connection with the implementation of this title 
     on potential impacts to any consistency determination for 
     operations of the State Water Project issued pursuant to 
     California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1.
       (b) Additional Yield.--If, as a result of the application 
     of this title, the California Department of Fish and 
     Wildlife--
       (1) revokes the consistency determinations pursuant to 
     California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 that are 
     applicable to the State Water Project;
       (2) amends or issues one or more new consistency 
     determinations pursuant to California Fish and Game Code 
     section 2080.1 in a manner that directly or indirectly 
     results in reduced water supply to the State Water Project as 
     compared with the water supply available under the smelt 
     biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion; or
       (3) requires take authorization under California Fish and 
     Game Code section 2081 for operation of the State Water 
     Project in a manner that directly or indirectly results in 
     reduced water supply to the State Water Project as compared 
     with the water supply available under the smelt biological 
     opinion and the salmonid biological opinion, and as a 
     consequence of the Department's action, Central Valley 
     Project yield

[[Page 10492]]

     is greater than it would have been absent the Department's 
     actions, then that additional yield shall be made available 
     to the State Water Project for delivery to State Water 
     Project contractors to offset losses resulting from the 
     Department's action.
       (c) Notification Related to Environmental Protections.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall immediately notify the 
     Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in 
     writing if the Secretary of the Interior determines that 
     implementation of the smelt biological opinion and the 
     salmonid biological opinion consistent with this title 
     reduces environmental protections for any species covered by 
     the opinions.

     SEC. 302. AREA OF ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior is directed, 
     in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to 
     California's water rights laws governing water rights 
     priorities and to honor water rights senior to those held by 
     the United States for operation of the Central Valley 
     Project, regardless of the source of priority, including any 
     appropriative water rights initiated prior to December 19, 
     1914, as well as water rights and other priorities perfected 
     or to be perfected pursuant to California Water Code Part 2 
     of Division 2. Article 1.7 (commencing with section 1215 of 
     chapter 1 of part 2 of division 2, sections 10505, 10505.5, 
     11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and sections 12200 
     through 12220, inclusive).
       (b) Diversions.--Any action undertaken by the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to both 
     this title and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that requires that diversions 
     from the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin River watersheds 
     upstream of the Delta be bypassed shall not be undertaken in 
     a manner that alters the water rights priorities established 
     by California law.

     SEC. 303. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure 
     that, except as otherwise provided for in a water service or 
     repayment contract, actions taken in compliance with legal 
     obligations imposed pursuant to or as a result of this title, 
     including such actions under section 7 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and other 
     applicable Federal and State laws, shall not directly or 
     indirectly--
       (1) result in the involuntary reduction of water supply or 
     fiscal impacts to individuals or districts who receive water 
     from either the State Water Project or the United States 
     under water rights settlement contracts, exchange contracts, 
     water service contracts, repayment contracts, or water supply 
     contracts; or
       (2) cause redirected adverse water supply or fiscal impacts 
     to those within the Sacramento River watershed, the San 
     Joaquin River watershed or the State Water Project service 
     area.
       (b) Costs.--To the extent that costs are incurred solely 
     pursuant to or as a result of this title and would not 
     otherwise have been incurred by any entity or public or local 
     agency or subdivision of the State of California, such costs 
     shall not be borne by any such entity, agency, or subdivision 
     of the State of California, unless such costs are incurred on 
     a voluntary basis.
       (c) Rights and Obligations Not Modified or Amended.--
     Nothing in this title shall modify or amend the rights and 
     obligations of the parties to any existing--
       (1) water service, repayment, settlement, purchase, or 
     exchange contract with the United States, including the 
     obligation to satisfy exchange contracts and settlement 
     contracts prior to the allocation of any other Central Valley 
     Project water; or
       (2) State Water Project water supply or settlement contract 
     with the State.

     SEC. 304. ALLOCATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONTRACTORS.

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

     SEC. 305. EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.

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

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. WATER SUPPLY ACCOUNTING.

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

     SEC. 402. OPERATIONS OF THE TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.

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

     SEC. 403. REPORT ON RESULTS OF WATER USAGE.

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

[[Page 10493]]



     SEC. 404. KLAMATH PROJECT CONSULTATION APPLICANTS.

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

     SEC. 405. CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretaries 
     shall--
       (1) recognize Congressional opposition to the violation of 
     private property rights by the California State Water 
     Resources Control Board in their proposal to require a 
     minimum percentage of unimpaired flows in the main 
     tributaries of the San Joaquin River; and
       (2) recognize the need to provide reliable water supplies 
     to municipal, industrial, and agricultural users across the 
     State.

                  TITLE V--WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING ACT

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       (3) Qualifying projects.--The term ``qualifying 
     projects''--
       (A) means new surface water storage projects in the States 
     covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 
     1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on lands administered by 
     the Department of the Interior or the Department of 
     Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-of-way, lease, 
     or any private holding, unless the project applicant elects 
     not to participate in the process authorized by this Act; and
       (B) includes State-led storage projects (as defined in 
     section 4007(a)(2) of the WIIN Act) for new surface water 
     storage projects in the States covered under the Act of June 
     17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental 
     to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) 
     constructed on lands administered by the Department of the 
     Interior or the Department of Agriculture, exclusive of any 
     easement, right-of-way, lease, or any private holding, unless 
     the project applicant elects not to participate in the 
     process authorized by this Act.
       (4) Cooperating agencies.--The term ``cooperating agency'' 
     means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review, 
     analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other 
     approval or decision required for a qualifying project under 
     applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency 
     subject to section 503(c).

     SEC. 503. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING 
                   AGENCIES.

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

     SEC. 504. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) In General.--The principal responsibilities of the 
     Bureau under this title are to--
       (1) serve as the point of contact for applicants, State 
     agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed 
     qualifying projects;
       (2) coordinate preparation of unified environmental 
     documentation that will serve as the basis for all Federal 
     decisions necessary to authorize the use of Federal lands for 
     qualifying projects; and
       (3) coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for 
     project development and construction of qualifying projects.
       (b) Coordination Process.--The Bureau shall have the 
     following coordination responsibilities:
       (1) Pre-application coordination.--Notify cooperating 
     agencies of proposed qualifying projects not later than 30 
     days after receipt of a proposal and facilitate a 
     preapplication meeting for prospective applicants, relevant 
     Federal and State agencies, and Indian tribes to--
       (A) explain applicable processes, data requirements, and 
     applicant submissions necessary to complete the required 
     Federal agency reviews within the timeframe established; and
       (B) establish the schedule for the qualifying project.
       (2) Consultation with cooperating agencies.--Consult with 
     the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review 
     process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely 
     manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies.
       (3) Schedule.--Work with the qualifying project applicant 
     and cooperating agencies to establish a project schedule. In 
     establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among 
     other factors--
       (A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under 
     applicable laws and regulations;
       (B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and 
     the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable;
       (C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying 
     project;
       (D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying 
     project; and
       (E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that may be affected by the qualifying project.
       (4) Environmental compliance.--Prepare a unified 
     environmental review document for each qualifying project 
     application, incorporating a single environmental record on 
     which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue 
     approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project 
     approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies 
     make necessary decisions, within their respective 
     authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with 
     the following timelines:
       (A) Not later than one year after acceptance of a completed 
     project application when an environmental assessment and 
     finding of no significant impact is determined to be the 
     appropriate level of review under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (B) Not later than one year and 30 days after the close of 
     the public comment period for a draft environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact 
     statement is required under the same.
       (5) Consolidated administrative record.--Maintain a 
     consolidated administrative record of the information 
     assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis 
     for agency decisions.
       (6) Project data records.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, ensure that all project data is 
     submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic 
     format, compile, and where authorized under existing law, 
     make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the 
     qualifying project applicant, and to the public.
       (7) Project manager.--Appoint a project manager for each 
     qualifying project. The project manager shall have authority 
     to oversee the project and to facilitate the issuance of the 
     relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be 
     responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau 
     responsibilities set forth in this section and all 
     cooperating agency responsibilities under section 505.

     SEC. 505. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.

       (a) Adherence to Bureau Schedule.--Upon notification of an 
     application for a qualifying project, all cooperating 
     agencies shall submit to the Bureau a timeframe under which 
     the cooperating agency reasonably considers it will be able 
     to complete its authorizing responsibilities. The Bureau 
     shall use the timeframe submitted under this subsection to 
     establish the project schedule under section 504, and the 
     cooperating agencies shall adhere to the project schedule 
     established by the Bureau.
       (b) Environmental Record.--Cooperating agencies shall 
     submit to the Bureau all environmental review material 
     produced or compiled in the course of carrying out activities 
     required under Federal law consistent with the project 
     schedule established by the Bureau.
       (c) Data Submission.--To the extent practicable and 
     consistent with Federal law, the cooperating agencies shall 
     submit all relevant project data to the Bureau in a generally 
     accessible electronic format subject to the project schedule 
     set forth by the Bureau.

     SEC. 506. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in 
     accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Administrative Procedure Act''), may accept and expend 
     funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity to expedite 
     the evaluation of a permit of that entity related to a 
     qualifying project.

[[Page 10494]]

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

          TITLE VI--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECT STREAMLINING

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 603. ACCELERATION OF STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--To the extent practicable, a project study 
     initiated by the Secretary, after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388), 
     and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, 
     shall--
       (1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report 
     not later than 3 years after the date of initiation;
       (2) have a maximum Federal cost of $3,000,000; and
       (3) ensure that personnel from the local project area, 
     region, and headquarters levels of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     concurrently conduct the review required under this section.
       (b) Extension.--If the Secretary determines that a project 
     study described in subsection (a) will not be conducted in 
     accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary, not later than 
     30 days after the date of making the determination, shall--
       (1) prepare an updated project study schedule and cost 
     estimate;
       (2) notify the non-Federal project cost-sharing partner 
     that the project study has been delayed; and
       (3) provide written notice to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the 
     reasons the requirements of subsection (a) are not 
     attainable.
       (c) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may extend the timeline of a 
     project study by a period not to exceed 3 years, if the 
     Secretary determines that the project study is too complex to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a).
       (2) Factors.--In making a determination that a study is too 
     complex to comply with the requirements of subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the type, size, location, scope, and overall cost of 
     the project;
       (B) whether the project will use any innovative design or 
     construction techniques;
       (C) whether the project will require significant action by 
     other Federal, State, or local agencies;
       (D) whether there is significant public dispute as to the 
     nature or effects of the project; and
       (E) whether there is significant public dispute as to the 
     economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (3) Notification.--Each time the Secretary makes a 
     determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     provide written notice to the Committee on Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate as to the results of that 
     determination, including an identification of the specific 
     one or more factors used in making the determination that the 
     project is complex.
       (4) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not extend the 
     timeline for a project study for a period of more than 7 
     years, and any project study that is not completed before 
     that date shall no longer be authorized.
       (d) Reviews.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     initiation of a project study described in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) take all steps necessary to initiate the process for 
     completing federally mandated reviews that the Secretary is 
     required to complete as part of the study, including the 
     environmental review process under section 805;
       (2) convene a meeting of all Federal, tribal, and State 
     agencies identified under section 605(d) that may--
       (A) have jurisdiction over the project;
       (B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
     analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
       (C) be required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision for the 
     project study; and
       (3) take all steps necessary to provide information that 
     will enable required reviews and analyses related to the 
     project to be conducted by other agencies in a thorough and 
     timely manner.
       (e) Interim Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report 
     that describes--
       (1) the status of the implementation of the planning 
     process under this section, including the number of 
     participating projects;
       (2) a review of project delivery schedules, including a 
     description of any delays on those studies initiated prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary 
     to support efforts to expedite the project.
       (f) Final Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and make publicly available a report 
     that describes--
       (1) the status of the implementation of this section, 
     including a description of each project study subject to the 
     requirements of this section;
       (2) the amount of time taken to complete each project 
     study; and
       (3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary 
     to support efforts to expedite the project study process, 
     including an analysis of whether the limitation established 
     by subsection (a)(2) needs to be adjusted to address the 
     impacts of inflation.

     SEC. 604. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS.

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

     SEC. 605. PROJECT ACCELERATION.

       (a) Applicability.--

[[Page 10495]]

       (1) In general.--This section shall apply to--
       (A) each project study that is initiated after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and for which an environmental impact 
     statement is prepared under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (B) the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary, to 
     other project studies initiated before the date of enactment 
     of this Act and for which an environmental review process 
     document is prepared under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (C) any project study for the development of a nonfederally 
     owned and operated surface water storage project for which 
     the Secretary determines there is a demonstrable Federal 
     interest and the project--
       (i) is located in a river basin where other Bureau of 
     Reclamation water projects are located;
       (ii) will create additional water supplies that support 
     Bureau of Reclamation water projects; or
       (iii) will become integrated into the operation of Bureau 
     of Reclamation water projects.
       (2) Flexibility.--Any authority granted under this section 
     may be exercised, and any requirement established under this 
     section may be satisfied, for the conduct of an environmental 
     review process for a project study, a class of project 
     studies, or a program of project studies.
       (3) List of project studies.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall annually prepare, and 
     make publicly available, a list of all project studies that 
     the Secretary has determined--
       (i) meets the standards described in paragraph (1); and
       (ii) does not have adequate funding to make substantial 
     progress toward the completion of the project study.
       (B) Inclusions.--The Secretary shall include for each 
     project study on the list under subparagraph (A) a 
     description of the estimated amounts necessary to make 
     substantial progress on the project study.
       (b) Project Review Process.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and implement 
     a coordinated environmental review process for the 
     development of project studies.
       (2) Coordinated review.--The coordinated environmental 
     review process described in paragraph (1) shall require that 
     any review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or 
     other approval or decision issued or made by a Federal, 
     State, or local governmental agency or an Indian tribe for a 
     project study described in subsection (b) be conducted, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, concurrently with any other 
     applicable governmental agency or Indian tribe.
       (3) Timing.--The coordinated environmental review process 
     under this subsection shall be completed not later than the 
     date on which the Secretary, in consultation and concurrence 
     with the agencies identified under section 705(d), 
     establishes with respect to the project study.
       (c) Lead Agencies.--
       (1) Joint lead agencies.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and the requirements of section 1506.8 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), 
     including the concurrence of the proposed joint lead agency, 
     a project sponsor may serve as the joint lead agency.
       (B) Project sponsor as joint lead agency.--A project 
     sponsor that is a State or local governmental entity may--
       (i) with the concurrence of the Secretary, serve as a joint 
     lead agency with the Federal lead agency for purposes of 
     preparing any environmental document under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); 
     and
       (ii) prepare any environmental review process document 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) required in support of any action or 
     approval by the Secretary if--

       (I) the Secretary provides guidance in the preparation 
     process and independently evaluates that document;
       (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.

[[Page 10496]]

       (g) Programmatic Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue guidance 
     regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the 
     environmental review process that--
       (A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues;
       (B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at each 
     level of review;
       (C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with 
     participating and cooperating agencies, including the 
     creation of a list of all data that are needed to carry out 
     an environmental review process; and
       (D) complies with--
       (i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (ii) all other applicable laws.
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that 
     paragraph, consult with relevant Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies, Indian tribes, and the public on the 
     appropriate use and scope of the programmatic approaches;
       (B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among 
     relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, and 
     Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, especially 
     with respect to including reviews with a broad geographical 
     scope;
       (C) ensure that the programmatic reviews--
       (i) promote transparency, including of the analyses and 
     data used in the environmental review process, the treatment 
     of any deferred issues raised by Federal, State, and local 
     governmental agencies, Indian tribes, or the public, and the 
     temporal and special scales to be used to analyze those 
     issues;
       (ii) use accurate and timely information in the 
     environmental review process, including--

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

       (iii) describe--

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (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.

[[Page 10497]]

       (E) Convention by secretary.--The Secretary may convene an 
     issue resolution meeting under this paragraph at any time, at 
     the discretion of the Secretary, regardless of whether a 
     meeting is requested under subparagraph (A).
       (5) Financial penalty provisions.--
       (A) In general.--A Federal jurisdictional agency shall 
     complete any required approval or decision for the 
     environmental review process on an expeditious basis using 
     the shortest existing applicable process.
       (B) Failure to decide.--
       (i) In general.--

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

       (aa) $20,000 for any project study requiring the 
     preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact statement; or
       (bb) $10,000 for any project study requiring any type of 
     review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) other than an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement.
       (ii) Description of date.--The date referred to in clause 
     (i) is the later of--

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

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

       (I) the agency has not received necessary information or 
     approvals from another entity in a manner that affects the 
     ability of the agency to meet any requirements under Federal, 
     State, or local law;
       (II) significant new information, including from public 
     comments, or circumstances, including a major modification to 
     an aspect of the project, requires additional analysis for 
     the agency to make a decision on the project application; or
       (III) the agency lacks the financial resources to complete 
     the review under the scheduled timeframe, including a 
     description of the number of 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

[[Page 10498]]

       (ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary for 
     new categorical exclusions; and
       (C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and 
     project sponsors for new categorical exclusions.
       (2) New categorical exclusions.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, if the Secretary has 
     identified a category of activities that merit establishing a 
     categorical exclusion that did not exist on the day before 
     the date of enactment this Act based on the review under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking to propose that new categorical 
     exclusion, to the extent that the categorical exclusion meets 
     the criteria for a categorical exclusion under section 1508.4 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulation).
       (n) Review of Project Acceleration Reforms.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall--
       (A) assess the reforms carried out under this section; and
       (B) not later than 5 years and not later than 10 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report that describes the results 
     of the assessment.
       (2) Contents.--The reports under paragraph (1) shall 
     include an evaluation of impacts of the reforms carried out 
     under this section on--
       (A) project delivery;
       (B) compliance with environmental laws; and
       (C) the environmental impact of projects.
       (o) Performance Measurement.--The Secretary shall establish 
     a program to measure and report on progress made toward 
     improving and expediting the planning and environmental 
     review process.
       (p) Categorical Exclusions in Emergencies.--For the repair, 
     reconstruction, or rehabilitation of a Bureau of Reclamation 
     surface water storage project that is in operation or under 
     construction when damaged by an event or incident that 
     results in a declaration by the President of a major disaster 
     or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 
     the Secretary shall treat such repair, reconstruction, or 
     rehabilitation activity as a class of action categorically 
     excluded from the requirements relating to environmental 
     assessments or environmental impact statements under section 
     1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor 
     regulations), if the repair or reconstruction activity is--
       (1) in the same location with the same capacity, 
     dimensions, and design as the original Bureau of Reclamation 
     surface water storage project as before the declaration 
     described in this section; and
       (2) commenced within a 2-year period beginning on the date 
     of a declaration described in this subsection.

     SEC. 606. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate an 
     annual report, to be entitled ``Report to Congress on Future 
     Water Project Development'', that identifies the following:
       (1) Project reports.--Each project report that meets the 
     criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (2) Proposed project studies.--Any proposed project study 
     submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest pursuant 
     to subsection (b) that meets the criteria established in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (3) Proposed modifications.--Any proposed modification to 
     an authorized water project or project study that meets the 
     criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A) that--
       (A) is submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest 
     pursuant to subsection (b); or
       (B) is identified by the Secretary for authorization.
       (4) Expedited completion of report and determinations.--Any 
     project study that was expedited and any Secretarial 
     determinations under section 804.
       (b) Requests for Proposals.--
       (1) Publication.--Not later than May 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed 
     project studies and proposed modifications to authorized 
     projects and project studies to be included in the annual 
     report.
       (2) Deadline for requests.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each notice required by this subsection a requirement that 
     non-Federal interests submit to the Secretary any proposals 
     described in paragraph (1) by not later than 120 days after 
     the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register 
     in order for the proposals to be considered for inclusion in 
     the annual report.
       (3) Notification.--On the date of publication of each 
     notice required by this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) make the notice publicly available, including on the 
     Internet; and
       (B) provide written notification of the publication to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.
       (c) Contents.--
       (1) Project reports, proposed project studies, and proposed 
     modifications.--
       (A) Criteria for inclusion in report.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the annual report 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

[[Page 10499]]

     order for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in 
     the first annual report developed by the Secretary under this 
     section.
       (e) Publication.--Upon submission of an annual report to 
     Congress, the Secretary shall make the annual report publicly 
     available, including through publication on the Internet.
       (f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``project 
     report'' means a final feasibility report developed under the 
     Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and all Acts 
     amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

     SEC. 607. APPLICABILITY OF WIIN ACT.

       Sections 4007 and 4009 of the WIIN Act (Public Law 114-322) 
     shall not apply to any project (as defined in section 602 of 
     this Act).

                   TITLE VII--WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Water Rights Protection 
     Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means, as 
     applicable--
       (A) the Secretary of Agriculture; or
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Water right.--The term ``water right'' means any 
     surface, groundwater, or storage use filed, permitted, 
     certificated, confirmed, decreed, adjudicated, or otherwise 
     recognized by a judicial proceeding or by the State in which 
     the user acquires possession of the water or puts it to 
     beneficial use. Such term shall include water rights for 
     federally recognized Indian Tribes

     SEC. 703. TREATMENT OF WATER RIGHTS.

       The Secretary shall not--
       (1) condition the issuance, renewal, amendment, or 
     extension of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, 
     easement, right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy 
     agreement on the transfer of any water right (including joint 
     and sole ownership) directly or indirectly to the United 
     States, or on any impairment of title or interest, in whole 
     or in part, granted or otherwise recognized under State law, 
     by Federal or State adjudication, decree, or other judgment, 
     or pursuant to any interstate water compact; or
       (2) require any water user (including any federally 
     recognized Indian Tribe) to apply for or acquire a water 
     right in the name of the United States under State law as a 
     condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or extension 
     of any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, 
     right-of-way, or other land use or occupancy agreement.

     SEC. 704. POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

       In developing any rule, policy, directive, management plan, 
     or similar Federal action relating to the issuance, renewal, 
     amendment, or extension of any permit, approval, license, 
     lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use 
     or occupancy agreement, the Secretary--
       (1) shall--
       (A) recognize the longstanding authority of the States 
     relating to evaluating, protecting, allocating, regulating, 
     permitting, and adjudicating water use; and
       (B) coordinate with the States to ensure that any rule, 
     policy, directive, management plan, or similar Federal action 
     is consistent with, and imposes no greater restriction or 
     regulatory requirement, than applicable State water law; and
       (2) shall not--
       (A) adversely affect--
       (i) the authority of a State in--

       (I) permitting the beneficial use of water; or
       (II) adjudicating water rights;

       (ii) any definition established by a State with respect to 
     the term ``beneficial use'', ``priority of water rights'', or 
     ``terms of use''; or
       (iii) any other right or obligation of a State established 
     under State law; or
       (B) assert any connection between surface and groundwater 
     that is inconsistent with such a connection recognized by 
     State water laws.

     SEC. 705. EFFECT.

       (a) Existing Authority.--Nothing in this title limits or 
     expands any existing legally recognized authority of the 
     Secretary to issue, grant, or condition any permit, approval, 
     license, lease, allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other 
     land use or occupancy agreement on Federal land that is 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       (b) Reclamation Contracts.--Nothing in this title in any 
     way interferes with any existing or future Bureau of 
     Reclamation contract entered into pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 
     chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of 
     that Act).
       (c) Endangered Species Act.--Nothing in this title affects 
     the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (d) Federal Reserved Water Rights.--Nothing in this title 
     limits or expands any existing reserved water rights of the 
     Federal Government on land administered by the Secretary.
       (e) Federal Power Act.--Nothing in this title limits or 
     expands authorities pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(j), or 18 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e), 803(j), 811).
       (f) Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title limits or 
     expands any existing reserved water right or treaty right of 
     any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
       (g) Federally Held State Water Rights.--Nothing in this 
     title limits the ability of the Secretary, through applicable 
     State procedures, to acquire, use, enforce, or protect a 
     State water right owned by the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House 
Report 115-212. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1745


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 63, strike line 19 through page 64, line 2 and insert 
     the following:
       (d) Program for Water Rescheduling.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall develop and implement a program, not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to 
     provide the opportunity for individuals or districts that 
     receive Central Valley Project Water under water service or 
     repayment contracts or water rights settlement contracts 
     within the American River, Sacramento River, Shasta and 
     Trinity River Divisions to reschedule water, provided for 
     under their Central Valley Project water service, repayment 
     or settlement contracts, within the same year or from one 
     year to the next.
       Page 64, strike lines 3 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the year type terms used 
     in subsection (a)

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. McClintock for managing this bill 
and for his help on this.
  I am pleased to support the bill, the GROW Act, which, contrary to 
some claims, protects northern California water rights and keeps more 
water in the north than the status quo. I should know because I 
represent the source of the overwhelming majority of California's 
usable water.
  The underlying bill improves water efficiency by allowing junior 
water contractors in the Sacramento Valley to carry over water supplies 
from one year to the next in Lake Shasta, retaining access to those 
supplies the following year, which promotes efficiency when you are 
banking that additional water for future use.
  This amendment improves the bill by ensuring that all Federal water 
contractors in the Sacramento Valley have the same ability to 
reschedule their water supplies.
  Mr. Chair, under the current system, water contractors are forced to 
use it or lose it. If water allocations are not fully used each year, 
the ability to access that water is lost.
  Now, around Washington, D.C., that use-it-or-lose-it attitude usually 
means a lot of money that sits in certain agencies' bank accounts or in 
their pots, it is just used up. Why would we want to do that kind of 
thing with water? We need to be banking it and saving it, where 
practical, to be usable in the next year or to pass to others who could 
use it as well.
  During wet years, farms and ranches may choose to reschedule a 
portion of their water for the following year. This bill and this 
amendment will significantly improve planning and delivery of water 
supplies by ensuring maximum flexibility, flexibility which we need, 
and allowing water to be accessed when it is needed most.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I also represent northern California. My 
friend, Mr. LaMalfa, just said that this bill fully protects northern 
California's water. Well, we represent the two districts right next to 
each other that are the northernmost districts in

[[Page 10500]]

California, and I can tell you, my part of northern California doesn't 
do so well under this bill.
  In fact, the only way we have been able to prevent a repeat of a 
catastrophic fish kill disaster in the Klamath River system each of the 
last several years has been by releasing cold water in the Trinity 
River, which is a major tributary to the lower Klamath River. That has 
been a lifesaver for the communities downstream that depend on those 
salmon runs. This bill would legislatively prohibit the Bureau of 
Reclamation from ever doing that again.
  So this is not a bill that is good for northern California, 
certainly, my part of northern California. And I think the same goes 
for the other northern California colleagues that we heard testify in 
opposition earlier.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, providing flexibility for more parts of 
California does not, indeed, punish any other part of northern 
California. With that, we have to dispel some of these notions about 
what the end goal is for this legislation and for my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This amendment is about rescheduled water, and this is a technical 
term that, for people who aren't familiar with water use in California 
and other parts of the country, it allows people with water rights, 
whether they be senior or junior water rights, to reserve that water, 
in other words, to reschedule it, to hold it off for another time when 
it might be more valuable to use. And so this is an important tool.
  I agree with Congressman LaMalfa that water users throughout 
California should have flexibility to use their water supplies in ways 
that are most beneficial to be able to reschedule it.
  I do have some concerns that this amendment may have unintended 
consequences with other water users downstream should it become law 
without changes. Specifically, it is critical that those with more 
junior water rights, like some of the areas I represent south of the 
California delta, are not negatively impacted when they reschedule 
their water from senior water rights holders.
  Water is precious. You have water shortages. So if I want to reserve 
it for later in the year or for the next water year, that means 
rescheduled water. So for these water users, we want to protect that 
ability.
  Additionally, in the event that a future wet year causes spilling of 
rescheduled water, it is critical that the priority of the water 
spilling is addressed in a fair and equitable manner.
  I would like to work with the gentleman to address these concerns. 
And I thank him, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be able to work with my 
colleague, Mr. Costa, to ensure that these concerns are met and 
addressed as the bill moves through the Senate.
  I believe the ability to reschedule water deliveries for these 
periods when they are needed should be offered as widely as possible, 
and I appreciate the support in that goal.
  Indeed, the opportunity that we can help the Central Valley with 
this, I relish that opportunity to do so. More facilities to store more 
water is, indeed, very important so we have more flexibility for Mr. 
Costa and his neighbors, constituents.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very 
good amendment. The committee supports it, and it is essential to 
providing the flexibility that is necessary.
  I might point out to my colleague from California, when we originally 
developed this bill more than 5 years ago, we consulted more than 60 
water agencies throughout northern and central California, including 
many in Democratic congressional districts. Senior water rights are 
essential to northern California. This bill strengthens them, and Mr. 
LaMalfa's amendment adds the management flexibility that is long 
overdue.
  Mr. COSTA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  That is correct. I know this was offered 5 years ago. I would like to 
point out, though, in the last 5 years of the drought conditions, we 
have learned a whole lot more about the flexibility and how you can and 
cannot use rescheduled water and, of course, how valuable it is.
  So I respect and thank the gentleman, Congressman LaMalfa, for 
working together on this to ensure that we protect all of the water 
users in their ability to have flexibility, especially during drought 
times.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, indeed, whether it is a drought period where 
we have to work even harder to spread that water around or in a year of 
abundance like what we had, we have to be wise about storing it where 
we can and having the flexibility to put it where we need to and having 
additional facilities in the future to store farther into the drought 
years that, no doubt, will come. This is what we are looking for in 
this legislation and what I am trying to promote for my particular area 
in northern California with this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. How much time do I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) has 45 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, indeed, the water battles in California 
have been very difficult for many, many years, but what I hear from the 
other side of the aisle is a whole lot of ``no.'' What I hear from 
normal Californians who aren't in positions of elected leadership who 
seem to be more interested in catering to a few environmental groups 
instead of the needs of Californians, especially on the heels of 
drought, what these Californians are saying is: Get this stuff done. 
Get these projects done. Help us out. Help us to have jobs in our State 
and not cater to just a handful of interests here that will help us 
through another election.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to present the amendment and proud to work 
with these folks, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I actually have no problem with my 
colleague's attempt to make a clarification to this bill. That 
clarification is needed, I am sure, but it is important to realize that 
the reason it is needed is because we haven't gone through regular 
order. We are talking about provisions that have not had the benefit of 
hearings, of markups, of witness testimony, clarifications that would 
have been made in the regular order process.
  The underlying bill, it is important to remember, does enormous 
damage to California water law. That is why it is opposed by the 
Governor, by our attorney general, by our two U.S. Senators, and by 
many members of the California delegation.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Costa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 204. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY.

       The Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the United 
     States Geological Survey,

[[Page 10501]]

     the State of California, and local and State water agencies, 
     may conduct detailed geophysical characterization activities 
     of subsurface aquifer systems and groundwater vulnerability 
     in California, which has experienced a critical, multi-year 
     drought that resulted in severe groundwater overdraft in some 
     areas, followed by less than optimal recharge from the heavy 
     rainstorms and flooding during the 2016-2017 winter season. 
     This geophysical survey should include data pertaining to the 
     following:
       (1) Subsurface system framework: occurrence and geometry of 
     aquifer and non-aquifer zones.
       (2) Aquifer storage and transmission characteristics.
       (3) Areas of greatest recharge potential.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to first thank the Rules Committee chairman, and the 
ranking member, Ms. Slaughter, for making my amendment in order.
  Mr. Chair, groundwater storage is a central element of drought 
resilience in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout California. 
Recharging our groundwater that has been overdrafted is critical in 
terms of our overall strategy to use all the water tools in our water 
management toolbox.
  California's hydrological cycle is varied, with each year's intense 
rainfall and flooding like this year followed by prolonged periods of 
droughts like the previous 5 years. As a matter of fact, in California, 
it is either feast or famine. We don't have enough or we have too much 
water.
  This varied hydrological cycle means that regions like the San 
Joaquin Valley rely heavily on groundwater to supply regional water 
needs during the dry years, and that is how the overdraft takes place. 
An attempt to refill that pumped water during wet years comes all too 
infrequently.
  The recent record drought, coupled with previous droughts and policy 
changes that have led to shifting of water supplies from agriculture 
water uses to environmental uses over the last 25 years, has literally 
resulted in ground sinking beneath the feet of the people of the San 
Joaquin Valley.
  These depletions led the State of California to pass a law in 2014 
that regulates the use of groundwater, with the objective of creating 
groundwater balance over time. It is called the Sustainable Groundwater 
Management Act, otherwise referred to as SGMA.
  Obviously, we ought to make our groundwater sustainable, and there 
are a lot of different ways in which we can do so in terms of that 
water strategy. This amendment purports to address part of that.
  Many groundwater basins have been overdrafted for long periods of 
time. Twenty-one of California's 515 groundwater basins now are 
considered critically overdrafted. That is a real, real serious crisis.
  It is critical that efforts are taken to recharge these groundwater 
aquifers so that the water is available during the dry years, which we 
know will surely come. This is all about sustainability. We know that 
the performance of any projected groundwater recharge and recovery 
project is reliant on a thorough understanding of how the surface and 
subsurface waters interact with a geographical region.
  Without thoroughly developed and field-verified information about the 
geophysical characteristics of California's groundwater aquifer systems 
and best areas for groundwater recharge projects, compliance with 
California's recently enacted Sustainable Groundwater Management Act--
it is simply infeasible for us to expect that we are going to do that 
without having all of the information together.
  What we are trying to do in this legislation is provide the 
opportunity to ensure that we have a reliable water supply so that we 
have food security. After all, food security, I believe, is a national 
security issue for America. It doesn't get looked at that way, but it 
is.
  California's Department of Water Resources has identified a number of 
gaps in the scientific body of knowledge that need to be filled in 
order to effectively recharge groundwater aquifers. Some of these 
studies show that simply irrigating lands in the Central Valley with 
right soil conditions for groundwater percolation could lead to an 
additional 2 million to 6 million acre-feet of groundwater 
infiltration. That would double the level of recovery rate in a post-
drought winter like 2017.
  This amendment would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation, partnered 
with scientific agencies, the United States Geological Survey, and the 
University of California, to conduct surveys for groundwater aquifers 
to identify, one, subsurface aquifer systems framework, including the 
geometry of areas where water can move more easily; two, aquifer 
storage and transmission characteristics; and three, land areas of 
greatest recharge potential.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. 
I thank the gentleman from Fresno, California, for his constructive 
contribution to this process.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman), who is from Marin County.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly offer my support 
for my colleague's amendment. This is a commonsense amendment that 
recognizes the tremendous potential that groundwater storage 
represents. This is one of the most important tools in our water 
management toolbox. We know that our future hydrology will be less 
certain because of climate change. It is going to make droughts across 
our country more frequent and severe.
  This amendment will help make sure we are taking the appropriate 
steps to prepare. So I want to thank my colleague for this forward-
thinking amendment, and I support its adoption.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Costa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 204. HEADWATER-RESTORATION SCOPING STUDY.

       The Bureau of Reclamation may partner with academia, 
     specifically the University of California, and State and 
     local water agencies, to develop a study to enhance mountain 
     runoff to Central Valley Project reservoirs from headwater 
     restoration with the following aims:
       (1) Estimate forest biomass density and annual 
     evapotranspiration (ET) across the Shasta Lake watershed for 
     the past decade using satellite and other available spatial 
     data.
       (2) Identify areas on public and private land that have 
     high biomass densities and ET, and assess potential changes 
     in ET that would ensue from forest restoration.
       (3) Assess role of subsurface storage in providing drought 
     resilience of forests, based on long-term historical 
     estimates of precipitation, drought severity and stream 
     discharge.
       (4) Assess role of snowpack in annual water balance across 
     the watersheds.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to first, again, thank the Rules Committee 
chair and Ranking Member Slaughter for making my amendment in order, as 
well as acknowledge my colleague from California, Congressman LaMalfa, 
for his work on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a record drought and the most destructive wildfire 
seasons on record have brought renewed attention to California's 
headwaters. These

[[Page 10502]]

forests, meadows, and other source waters play a vital role in 
California's water supply and management system, and they are under 
threat from a host of factors, including wildfires, climate change 
impacts, and poor management policies.
  More effective forest and headwaters management practices, such as 
increased use of forest thinning and watershed restoration, have 
demonstrated the potential to provide a measurable increase in water 
supply to the Central Valley Project reservoirs that receive runoff 
generated by these headwaters in the Sierra Nevadas, the beautiful 
mountains that we have in California.
  The Sierra Nevada mountain range, many people don't realize, 
generates nearly 60 percent of California's developed water supply--60 
percent. And that is why the abundance of snow on the mountains during 
the wintertime is so critical.
  Some estimates indicate that simply by instituting more effective 
headwaters management policies, that up to 300,000 acre-feet of 
additional water supplies--300,000 acre-feet--could be generated each 
year.
  Now, that is a significant yield of water when you look at the 
overdraft crop problems that we have and some of the other 
authorization of surface storage that we have made last year during the 
WIIN Act.
  As a matter of fact, the Bureau of Reclamation has analyzed that some 
of the projects that I support, such as raising Shasta Dam 18 feet, 
would generate anywhere from 75 to over 100,000 acre-feet of water 
annually. So if we can generate an additional 300,000 acre-feet by 
better managing our headwaters, this is almost three times that yield.
  Simply managing our forests better could, in many instances, 
quadruple our water supply and better produce environmental outcomes 
for our forest ecosystems.
  To put this in context, this is enough water to irrigate over 100,000 
acres, of which we have significant overdraft of land, or provide daily 
water for an additional 500,000 homes in California for an entire year.
  My amendment would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into 
partnerships to determine the amount of water that could be untapped by 
doing these kinds of efforts.
  Fixing California's broken water system, as I have said repeatedly, 
means using all of the water tools in our water management toolbox. 
Included in this amendment, we would be having the opportunity to 
improve our headwater management in an integrated and multidisciplinary 
approach that is responsive to the changing conditions that we face as 
we know that will continue to occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from northern 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this 
amendment as well.
  The headwaters of our watersheds play a crucial role in ensuring the 
reliability and the quality of water supplies throughout our State. Our 
water supply depends not just on artificial reservoirs, but also on 
natural reservoirs of snowpack and groundwater retention in the forests 
of these headwater areas.
  Healthy, vibrant forests provide multiple benefits, including carbon 
capture and shade to reduce rapid snowmelt. When they are properly 
protected, forest soils act like sponges to absorb rainfall and slowly 
release it back into rivers and streams throughout the year.
  This amendment is one of the many ways that we can ensure that the 
Bureau of Reclamation is building a 21st century water supply system 
for California and the West, so I strongly encourage support for it.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that has 
bipartisan support. Frankly, I think as we learned so much more about 
how the hydrology of California's water systems develop, we need to 
take advantage of that knowledge. And this amendment will allow us to 
do so in a way that makes this so valuable resource that we sometimes 
take for granted--that is our water supply--to allow us to use it in a 
way that makes sense and will provide the water needs for all 
Californians.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Denham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 406. NEW MELONES RESERVOIR.

       The authority under section 4006 of the WIIN Act shall 
     expire 7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 407. ACTIONS TO BENEFIT THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 
                   SPECIES AND OTHER WILDLIFE.

       None of the funds made available under section 4010(b) of 
     the WIIN Act may be used for the acquisition or leasing of 
     land, water for in-stream purposes if the water is already 
     committed to in-stream purposes, or interests in land or 
     water from willing sellers if the land, water, or interests 
     are already designated for environmental purposes by a court 
     adopted decree or order or cooperative agreement.

     SEC. 408. NON-FEDERAL PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS 
                   FISH IN STANISLAUS RIVER.

       The program established under section 4010(d) of the WIIN 
     Act shall not sunset before January 1, 2023.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
23.
  This amendment updates a small portion of the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN Act, to protect endangered 
species and assess water storage opportunities.
  First, it sets a reasonable timeframe for the completion of expanded 
water storage opportunities at the New Melones Reservoir. These 
opportunities can increase available storage for conservation, 
transfers, and rescheduled water projects to allow for maximum storage 
within the reservoir. Conservative estimates of increased water storage 
have been at 100,000 acre-feet, which will provide water for over 
400,000 people for a year.
  With such a precious resource, we must ensure our water storage 
capacity is being used responsibly. This timeline of 7 years is 
consistent with other provisions of the WIIN Act, and will ensure the 
study will be completed so we can make best use of our water storage 
capacity.
  Additionally, this amendment helps protect our threatened and 
endangered species.
  In Western States, water users can buy and sell water rights. This 
provision prevents individuals from using funding set aside for species 
conservation to buy water rights and sell them back to the government.
  Funding in section 4010(b) of the WIIN Act was allocated to benefit 
endangered species populations through habitat restoration, improved 
monitoring, and conservation fish hatcheries. This policy has been in 
effect for the Central Valley Project Improvement Act for over a decade 
and needs to be applied to this section as well. This ensures funding 
will be used for its intended purposes to help endangered species, not 
to buy and resell water rights.
  Finally, this amendment extends a program to protect native fish in 
the Stanislaus River for 2 years. This program allows for the taking of 
invasive species that prey on native salmon and steelhead in the 
Stanislaus River. It was originally authorized for 5 years. However, 
since the spawn cycle for these salmon is 3 years, it needs to be

[[Page 10503]]

extended to ensure two full salmon cohort cycles can be observed.
  In conclusion, this amendment protects native and endangered species, 
and ensures we are making the most of water storage capacity at the New 
Melones Reservoir.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC. 406. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROGRAMS.

       Section 3405(e) of the Central Valley Project Improvement 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The Secretary, through the office established under 
     this subsection, shall review available and new, innovative 
     technologies and programs for capturing municipal wastewater 
     and recycling it for providing drinking water and energy, and 
     report on the feasibility of expanding the implementation of 
     these technologies and programs among Central Valley Project 
     contractors.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment asks for a review of 
existing best practices worldwide for the capture and reuse of 
wastewater and a feasibility study on the expansion of these efforts.
  Existing policy requires a review of conservation plans of Central 
Valley Project contractors. I believe we should look further than just 
what we are currently doing and learn from new, emerging technologies 
and practices from around the world for recycling wastewater.
  Capturing wastewater for reuse is not new. Orange County, California, 
implemented its Groundwater Replenishment System in 2008, which 
augments the water supply for 850,000 residents with treated wastewater 
and helps reduce the area's dependence on water from the Sacramento-San 
Joaquin delta.
  In Singapore, an initiative to recycle wastewater supplies 
approximately one-third of the country's water demand. In Israel, 
treated sewage water meets approximately one-quarter of the country's 
needed water.
  Across California, more than 200 billion gallons of municipal 
wastewater are already reused each year. According to one report, 
California has an unrealized opportunity to grow that number to between 
390 billion and 590 billion acre-feet per year.
  The need for innovation to increase the amount of available water is 
very clear. Between 2011 and 2013, even before the onset of one of the 
State's most severe droughts on record, water stored in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin watershed and the Central Valley dropped by nearly 20 
billion cubic meters, or two-thirds of the volume of Lake Mead.
  We need to prepare for more severe droughts in the coming decades. 
With innovation and technologies available in the United States and 
around the world, we could and should continue to look for new ways to 
augment our water supply and enhance our water security.
  Around the world and across the United States, innovation and 
technologies for capturing and recycling wastewater are improving, and 
their costs are falling. The purpose of this amendment is to understand 
the current state of these technologies and to identify opportunities 
for expanding them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a superfluous 
provision that requires a study on a subject that we have already 
studied to death.
  We find the left constantly proposing these technologies to manage 
our existing water shortage often as an excuse not to expand our 
ability to store new water supplies.
  The problem is not complicated. These recycling projects are 
typically four times as expensive as traditional water storage, 
according to a 2016 study by the California Public Utilities 
Commission.
  If we had exhausted our existing resources, then these technologies 
might make sense if the alternative is no water at all. But that is not 
the alternative. The alternative is to develop our resources at about 
one-fourth the cost of these technologies the gentleman is trying to 
sell us--four times the cost.
  No consumer in his right mind would pay four times more for the same 
product. Only politicians would do that, and the problem is when 
politicians make this choice, consumers end up paying.
  Which brings me to my second objection to the gentleman's amendment. 
Our traditional water projects are paid for by the users of the water 
in proportion to their use, as is the beneficiary pays principle that 
has guided our water projects for generations.

                              {time}  1815

  These policies protect taxpayers from footing the bill for somebody 
else's water.
  The title 16 recycling projects the gentleman is promoting are not 
paid for by the water users but rather by general taxpayers, meaning 
these projects literally rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul.
  If the gentleman would like to confine the provisions of the bill to 
require his constituents to pay four times more for their water or that 
his constituents pay to subsidize the water for my constituents, I 
would be happy to support him. But I sincerely doubt that is what he 
has in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. DeSaulnier's 
amendment to H.R. 23.
  Recycling projects provide sustainable water sources that help make 
our communities drought-resilient. In Sacramento, we are working to 
build a project that would use claimed wastewater to irrigate up to 
18,000 acres of farmland and habitat.
  These are the types of projects that help prepare California for the 
next drought, and they result in more water for our farms and cities. 
We should be working on sustainable solutions like these.
  Last Congress, I introduced a bill to improve the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Funding Program by 
removing the requirement that each recycling project receive an 
explicit congressional authorization. The bill was included in the WIIN 
Act passed into law last year, thereby expanding the pool of eligible 
projects.
  Mr. DeSaulnier's amendment continues to move us forward by 
emphasizing the importance of recycling in our approach to managing 
water use. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Fixing California's broken water system, as we all know, involves 
multiple strategies. Recycled water, on-farm recharge, and other 
innovative methods of increasing water supply, we have found, improves 
the situation, but there is no silver bullet to solving California's 
long-term water challenges.
  In the Valley, we understand that, and this is why many communities 
moved forward on efforts to diversify

[[Page 10504]]

their water supplies. For example, the Del Puerto Water District has 
partnered in northern Merced and Stanislaus Counties with the cities of 
Modesto and Turlock on a project that uses treated wastewater to 
irrigate agricultural fields, creating significant water security for 
about 30 percent of Del Puerto's Central Valley water supply that is 
rarely delivered.
  This is cost-effective and costs less than other alternatives. We are 
partnering with local water districts in the city of Mendota and the 
city of Fresno.
  So this is a very valuable source of water, and we ought to encourage 
it whenever possible. More efforts like this are necessary.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, in defense of the economics of water 
recycling, I need to correct the record.
  The WateReuse Research Foundation has found that recycling projects 
tend to be among the cheapest ways to increase water supply. Potable 
water reuse is generally comparable or less expensive than alternative 
options.
  The Congressional Research Service has found that title 16 water 
recycling projects are comparable in price to alternate water sources--
in some cases, substantially cheaper--and there is vast new potential 
to develop these water supplies.
  This is exactly the kind of forward-thinking conversation we ought to 
have if we are serious about California water.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply cite to my friend the 
California Public Utilities Commission report in 2016, and what would 
be the cost of future sources of water for California. They say very 
clearly that recycling water is nearly four times as costly as 
traditional sources of water, and that is being generous.
  I support any water project that pencils out. This one does not. This 
one would require water bills to quadruple. For California, it is 
exactly policies like these that are driving water bills up. The people 
of California need to take note of that and to realize the choices they 
make at the ballot box have real world implications to the bills they 
are paying for simple things like water and power.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part C of House Report 115-212.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 131, beginning on line 5, strike ``Such term shall 
     include water rights for federally recognized Indian 
     Tribes''.
       Page 131, beginning on line 19, strike ``(including any 
     federally recognized Indian Tribe)''.
       Page 134, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       (f) Indian Water Rights.--Nothing in this title shall have 
     any effect on tribal water rights or their adjudication, or 
     the protection, settlement, or enforcement and/or 
     administration of such rights by either Indian tribes or the 
     United States as trustee for Indian tribes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, water is life. We understand that in the 
West maybe more than anywhere else in the world. So any time we are 
talking about water, we are talking about life, we are talking about 
the ability to have an economy, we are talking about jobs, we are 
talking about communities. It affects us deeply in the West.
  When the original bill, H.R. 23, was being marked up, my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), brought a concern to the 
members of the committee, saying that she felt like the underlying bill 
did not adequately address Tribal water rights.
  Tribes are some of the areas of deepest poverty in the country. As 
she brought that up, it struck my attention that we should take a look 
at it.
  Ultimately, her amendment failed in committee, but the two of us, 
with the chairman and the sponsor of the bill, huddled after the 
committee meeting and decided that we should move forward with our 
concerns. Those concerns are reflected in this amendment today.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Torres), to speak about this issue.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking also my 
friend, Representative Pearce from New Mexico, for offering this 
amendment with me.
  Mr. Chair, during our committee work on portions of this bill, I 
raised this issue and offered a similar amendment. So I appreciate 
Representative Pearce for working with me to improve the bill for 
Indian Country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will 
provide some limited, though not complete, legal protection for Indian 
Tribes and their water rights. That said, I continue to have grave 
concerns with the underlying bill and the impact it will have on Indian 
Country.
  Even if this amendment is adopted, the underlying bill will cause 
significant harm to Indian Country. For example, in title 4 of this 
bill, it blocks emergency water releases that prevent disease outbreaks 
for Tribal fisheries in California's Klamath River. The provision will 
significantly increase the risk of widespread fish kills and lead to 
tragic losses for Tribal communities.
  While this amendment doesn't mitigate all of the negative impacts of 
this bill, it will improve the bill somewhat by including an additional 
legal protection for Tribal rights that will preserve past, pending, or 
future Tribal water rights settlements.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado seek recognition?
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, to speak to the nature of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I am.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from New Mexico noted, 
Wayne Aspinall of Colorado stated: ``When you touch water in the West, 
you touch everything.''
  We have that shared concern that that water is going to be preserved. 
In the West, water is a private property right. We have State law. We 
have priority-based systems, which have always been recognized by the 
Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, we have seen and reflected in this portion of the 
legislation that we are discussing today, the Federal Government 
reaching out to be able to require conditional use of permit water 
rights to be signed over to the Federal Government. At issue is

[[Page 10505]]

the amendment that we are discussing right now.
  When we talk about our Native American Tribes, my colleague and I 
have shared in common interest, along with our colleague, Mrs. Torres, 
in terms of making sure that Native American rights are protected from 
taking by the Federal Government, as well.
  There is good news in the underlying bill. The Department of the 
Interior had made the statement that their ability to be able to 
negotiate or enter into water settlements with Tribes is in no way 
affected or restricted by this bill. It is in no way affected or 
restricted by this bill, according to the Department of the Interior.
  While I have no objections to the changes proposed in the savings 
clause to be able to clarify as much, I did want to be able to register 
concern on the amendment that it may not have been as definitive as I 
would like to have seen in regard to specifying Native American water 
rights.
  I think that is common ground that we are seeing on both sides of the 
aisle: to make sure that those private property rights are protected.
  I will not vote against this amendment, and I applaud my colleagues 
working together with us to be able to try and achieve an actual 
amiable solution on something that, as Westerners, we understand 
probably better than anyone else in the country the importance of 
water--water for our communities, water for the opportunity for our 
communities to be able to grow and to prosper.
  On this particular issue, a very important segment of that very 
community is the valuable contributions that our Native American Tribes 
make to all of our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the overall legislation. In terms 
of their work on this, I commend all Members.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate that my colleagues are 
trying to help mitigate a small amount of the harm caused by this bill, 
but, unfortunately, the underlying bill remains a disaster for Indian 
Country.
  Title 5 of this bill is a direct attack against the existing rights 
of Tribes in my district. As I have said previously, the salmon in the 
Klamath River system are the grocery store, the church, the lifeline 
for the Tribes in my district, and this bill explicitly prevents 
Federal agencies from making emergency water releases to combat fish 
disease and prevent massive fish kills that would devastate these 
Tribal balance fisheries.
  That is important to remember, lest we get too carried away with 
whatever curative effects this amendment might have.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, Tribes in New Mexico and across the West 
depend on water for agriculture, they depend on it for their families, 
they depend on it for spiritual reasons. Without rights, water can be 
taken by anyone.
  The amendment that Mrs. Torres and I put forward is just trying to 
say that rights are personal. They are private property rights, and no 
government can take them away. It is a reasonable amendment.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's observations. We will 
attempt to see that those observations are dealt with in a meaningful 
way. In the meantime, I simply ask Members of the House to join with me 
in voting for this amendment to H.R. 23.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1830


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5 printed 
in part C of House Report 115-212 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. DeSaulnier) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 221, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--201

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     LaMalfa
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--221

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie

[[Page 10506]]


     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barr
     Cheney
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Guthrie
     Himes
     Johnson, Sam
     Khanna
     Lieu, Ted
     Napolitano
     Scalis

                              {time}  1852

  Messrs. HARPER, GROTHMAN, RUSSELL, CURBELO of Florida, TAYLOR, 
MESSER, Mrs. NOEM, Messrs. FORTENBERRY, ROKITA, and BYRNE changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GOTTHEIMER and PRICE of North Carolina changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 23) 
to provide drought relief in the State of California, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 431, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Mr. Carbajal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 23 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end of title IV, the following:

     SEC. 406. WILDFIRE READINESS.

       Nothing in this Act shall impair the ability of the 
     National Interagency Fire Center to ensure that there is an 
     adequate supply of water to fight wildfires, utilizing water 
     from reservoirs or other surface waters.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  My request today is simple: to provide our firefighters with the 
water they need to effectively fight wildfires. As we speak, two large 
wildfires are burning in my district on the central coast of 
California. So far, over 40,000 acres of land have burned between the 
Alamo fire and the Whittier fire.
  With more than a dozen homes and structures of central coast 
residents destroyed, we cannot overstate the important and effective 
work of hundreds of local, State, and Federal firefighters to contain 
these blazes and prevent more damages.
  I spoke with incident commanders and toured both burn sites in Santa 
Barbara County, witnessing firsthand the incredible damage wreaked by 
these fires to our region.
  I was grateful for the opportunity to address our firefighters and 
first responders and to thank these brave men and women for willing to 
risk their own safety to protect infrastructure and save lives.
  In one harrowing instance, a firefighter cleared a path, driving a 
bulldozer through flaming brush to rescue dozens of Boy Scouts trapped 
at a campground at Lake Cachuma.
  Today, we have a duty as appropriators to provide these men and 
women, working tirelessly in difficult conditions, with the resources 
they need to effectively combat these frequent and devastating 
wildfires across our country, and especially in my home State.
  Ignoring our wildfire response when dealing with water allocation is 
irresponsible and will put American lives in danger.
  In addition to adopting this simple amendment to ensure our 
firefighters' access to water, I urge my colleagues to work to end the 
disruptive practice of fire borrowing.

                              {time}  1900

  We cannot continue to rob funds designated for wildfire prevention to 
pay for fighting fires and simultaneously expect agencies to carry out 
effective land management practices to reduce the impact of 
catastrophic wildfires in the future.
  Our Federal land management agencies are overwhelmed by the dramatic 
increase in fires on public lands in recent years, and we cannot in 
good conscience continue to ignore their urgent need for both 
prevention and firefighting funding.
  I am deeply concerned that this underlying bill today does nothing to 
address the issues of limited water resources for our agencies charged 
with fighting wildfires.
  I call upon my colleagues to adopt this common-sense amendment and 
show our firefighters that Congress not only appreciates their efforts, 
but acts to support them as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, my friends' concerns are well placed; 
his amendment is completely misplaced.
  The fact is that, for 45 years, our environmental laws have made the 
management of our forests virtually impossible. After 45 years of 
experience with these laws, imposed with the explicit promise they 
would improve our forest environment, I think we are entitled to ask: 
How is our forest environment doing? And the answer is damning; our 
forests are dying.
  Timber harvests of surplus timber have fallen 80 percent in those 
years. The result is severe overcrowding in our forests. An acre 
normally supports between 20 to 100 trees, depending upon the 
topography; but because of these laws, average density in the Sierra 
has now ballooned to 266 trees per acre.
  In this crowded condition, these trees fight for their lives against 
other trees trying to occupy the same ground. And in this crowded and 
stressed condition, they fall victim to disease, pestilence, drought, 
and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire.
  The answer is not this amendment that seeks to derail this needed 
water storage; it is to restore scientific management to our forests to 
restore them to a healthy condition.
  When I visited the command center of the Rim Fire several years ago 
that threatened Yosemite Valley, I asked the firefighters: What answer 
can I take, in your name, back to Congress?

[[Page 10507]]

And the answer was: Treatment matters. We need proper forest 
management.
  The good news for my friend from Santa Barbara is he will soon have 
the opportunity to vote on just such a bill, the Resilient Federal 
Forest Act, by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas. It treats this problem 
comprehensively. It passed the House Natural Resources Committee. We 
hope to bring it soon to the floor of the House. It will address the 
problems that plague our forests by restoring proper scientific 
management to our public lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 230, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barr
     Cheney
     Cleaver
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Guthrie
     Hudson
     Johnson, Sam
     Khanna
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Scalis


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1909

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 190, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               AYES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Gutierrez
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock

[[Page 10508]]


     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barr
     Butterfield
     Cheney
     Cleaver
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Guthrie
     Johnson, Sam
     Khanna
     Lieu, Ted
     Napolitano
     Scalis


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). 
There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1916

  Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
350, No. 351, and No. 352 due to my spouse's health situation in 
California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the 
DeSaulnier Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Motion to 
Recommit. I would have also voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 23--
Gaining Responsibility on Water Act of 2017.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained recognizing the 
Military Times Sailor of the Year from Gillette, Wyoming. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 350, ``nay'' on 
rollcall No. 351, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 352.

                          ____________________