Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?


108th Congress                                            Rept. 108-573
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1
======================================================================


 
      WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

                 June 25, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2828]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2828) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs 
aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

    TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Record of decision as general framework.--The Record of 
        Decision is approved as a general framework for addressing the 
        Calfed Bay-Delta Program, including its components relating to 
        water storage and water yield, ecosystem restoration, water 
        supply reliability, conveyance, water use efficiency, water 
        quality, water transfers, watersheds, the Environmental Water 
        Account, levee stability, governance, and science.
          (2) Specific activities.--The Secretary and the heads of the 
        Federal agencies are authorized to undertake, fund, participate 
        in, and otherwise carry out the activities described in the 
        Record of Decision, subject to the provisions of this title, so 
        that the activities of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program consisting 
        of protecting drinking water quality, restoring ecological 
        health, improving water supply reliability (including 
        additional water storage and water yield and conveyance), and 
        protecting Delta levees will progress in a balanced manner.
  (b) Authorized Activities.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary and the heads of the Federal 
        agencies are authorized to carry out the activities described 
        in paragraphs (2) through (5) in furtherance of the Calfed Bay-
        Delta Program as set forth in the Record of Decision, subject 
        to the cost-share and other provisions of this title.
          (2) Multiple benefit projects favored.--In selecting projects 
        and programs for increasing water yield and water supply, 
        improving water quality, and enhancing environmental benefits, 
        projects and programs with multiple benefits shall be 
        emphasized.
          (3) Balance.--The Secretary shall ensure that all elements of 
        the Calfed Bay-Delta Program need to be completed and operated 
        cooperatively to maintain the balanced progress in all Calfed 
        Bay-Delta Program areas.
          (4) Existing authorizations for federal agencies.--The 
        Secretary of the Interior and the heads of the Federal agencies 
        are authorized to carry out the activities described in 
        subparagraphs (A) through (J) of paragraph (5), to the extent 
        authorized under existing law.
          (5) Description of activities under existing 
        authorizations.--
                  (A) Water storage and water yield.--Activities under 
                this subparagraph consist of--
                          (i) Feasibility studies and resolution.--
                                  (I) For purposes of implementing the 
                                Calfed Bay-Delta Program, the Secretary 
                                is authorized to undertake all 
                                necessary planning activities and 
                                feasibility studies required for the 
                                development of recommendations by the 
                                Secretary to Congress on the 
                                construction and implementation of 
                                specific water supply and water yield, 
                                ground water management, and ground 
                                water storage projects and 
                                implementation of comprehensive water 
                                management planning.
                                  (II) Feasibility studies 
                                requirements.--All feasibility studies 
                                completed for storage projects as a 
                                result of this section shall include 
                                identification of project benefits and 
                                beneficiaries and a cost allocation 
                                plan consistent with the benefits to be 
                                received, for both governmental and 
                                non-governmental entities.
                                  (III) Disapproval resolution.--If the 
                                Secretary determines a project to be 
                                feasible, and meets the requirements 
                                under subparagraph (B), the report 
                                shall be submitted to Congress. If 
                                Congress does not pass a disapproval 
                                resolution of the feasibility study 
                                during the first 120 days before 
                                Congress (not including days on which 
                                either the House of Representatives or 
                                the Senate is not in session because of 
                                an adjournment of more than three 
                                calendar days to a day certain) the 
                                project shall be authorized, subject to 
                                appropriations.
                          (ii) Water supply and water yield study.--The 
                        Secretary, acting through the Bureau of 
                        Reclamation and in consultation with the State, 
                        shall conduct a study of available water 
                        supplies and water yield and existing demand 
                        and future needs for water--
                                  (I) within the units of the Central 
                                Valley Project;
                                  (II) within the area served by 
                                Central Valley Project agricultural 
                                water service contractors and municipal 
                                and industrial water service 
                                contractors; and
                                  (III) within the Bay-Delta solution 
                                area.
                          (iii) Relationship to prior study.--The study 
                        under clause (ii) shall incorporate and revise 
                        as necessary the study required by section 
                        3408(j) of the Central Valley Project 
                        Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
                          (iv) Management.--The Secretary shall conduct 
                        activities related to developing and 
                        implementing groundwater management and 
                        groundwater storage projects.
                          (v) Comprehensive water planning.--The 
                        Secretary shall conduct activities related to 
                        comprehensive water management planning.
                          (vi) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a 
                        report to the congressional authorizing 
                        committees by not later than 180 days after the 
                        date of the enactment of this title describing 
                        the following:
                                  (I) Water yield and water supply 
                                improvements, if any, for Central 
                                Valley Project agricultural water 
                                service contractors and municipal and 
                                industrial water service contractors.
                                  (II) All water management actions or 
                                projects that would improve water yield 
                                or water supply and that, if taken or 
                                constructed, would balance available 
                                water supplies and existing demand for 
                                those contractors and other water users 
                                of the Bay-Delta watershed with due 
                                recognition of water right priorities 
                                and environmental needs.
                                  (III) The financial costs of the 
                                actions and projects described under 
                                clause (II).
                                  (IV) The beneficiaries of those 
                                actions and projects and an assessment 
                                of their willingness to pay the capital 
                                costs and operation and maintenance 
                                costs thereof.
                  (B) Conveyance.--
                          (i) South delta actions.--In the case of the 
                        South Delta, activities under this clause 
                        consist of the following:
                                  (I) The South Delta Improvement 
                                Program through actions to accomplish 
                                the following:
                                          (aa) Increase the State Water 
                                        Project export limit to 8,500 
                                        cfs.
                                          (bb) Install permanent, 
                                        operable barriers in the south 
                                        Delta. The Federal Agencies 
                                        shall cooperate with the State 
                                        to accelerate installation of 
                                        the permanent, operable 
                                        barriers in the south Delta, 
                                        with the intent to complete 
                                        that installation not later 
                                        than the end of fiscal year 
                                        2006.
                                          (cc) Increase the State Water 
                                        Project export to the maximum 
                                        capability of 10,300 cfs.
                                  (II) Reduction of agricultural 
                                drainage in south Delta channels, and 
                                other actions necessary to minimize the 
                                impact of drainage on drinking water 
                                quality.
                                  (III) Design and construction of 
                                lower San Joaquin River floodway 
                                improvements.
                                  (IV) Installation and operation of 
                                temporary barriers in the south Delta 
                                until fully operable barriers are 
                                constructed.
                                  (V) Actions to protect navigation and 
                                local diversions not adequately 
                                protected by temporary barriers.
                                  (VI) Actions to increase pumping 
                                shall be accomplished in a manner 
                                consistent with California law 
                                protecting--
                                          (aa) deliveries to, costs of, 
                                        and water suppliers and water 
                                        users, including but not 
                                        limited to, agricultural users, 
                                        that have historically relied 
                                        on water diverted for use in 
                                        the Delta; and
                                          (bb) the quality of water for 
                                        existing municipal, industrial, 
                                        and agricultural uses.
                          (ii) North delta actions.--In the case of the 
                        North Delta, activities under this clause 
                        consist of--
                                  (I) evaluation and implementation of 
                                improved operational procedures for the 
                                Delta Cross Channel to address fishery 
                                and water quality concerns;
                                  (II) evaluation of a screened 
                                through-Delta facility on the 
                                Sacramento River; and
                                  (III) evaluation of lower Mokelumne 
                                River floodway improvements.
                          (iii) Interties.--Activities under this 
                        clause consist of--
                                  (I) evaluation and construction of an 
                                intertie between the State Water 
                                Project California Aqueduct and the 
                                Central Valley Project Delta Mendota 
                                Canal, near the City of Tracy; and
                                  (II) assessment of a connection of 
                                the Central Valley Project to the 
                                Clifton Court Forebay of the State 
                                Water Project, with a corresponding 
                                increase in the screened intake of the 
                                Forebay.
                          (iv) Program to meet standards.--Prior to 
                        increasing export limits from the Delta for the 
                        purposes of conveying water to south-of-Delta 
                        Central Valley Project contractors or 
                        increasing deliveries through an intertie, the 
                        Secretary shall, within one year of the date of 
                        enactment of this title, in consultation with 
                        the Governor, develop and implement a program 
                        to meet all existing water quality standards 
                        and objectives for which the CVP has 
                        responsibility. In developing and implementing 
                        the program the the Secretary shall include, to 
                        the maximum extent feasible, the following:
                                  (I) A recirculation program to 
                                provide flow, reduce salinity 
                                concentrations in the San Joaquin 
                                River, and reduce the reliance on New 
                                Melones Reservoir for meeting water 
                                quality and fishery flow objectives 
                                through the use of excess capacity in 
                                export pumping and conveyance 
                                facilities.
                                  (II) The implementation of mandatory 
                                source control programs and best 
                                drainage management practices to reduce 
                                discharges into the San Joaquin River 
                                of salt or other constituents from 
                                wildlife refuges that receive Central 
                                Valley Project water.
                                  (III) The acquisition from willing 
                                sellers of water from streams tributary 
                                to the San Joaquin River or other 
                                sources to provide flow, dilute 
                                discharges from wildlife refuges, and 
                                to improve water quality in the San 
                                Joaquin River below the confluence of 
                                the Merced and San Joaquin rivers and 
                                to reduce the reliance on New Melones 
                                Reservoir for meeting water quality and 
                                fishery flow objectives.
                          (v) Use of existing funding mechanisms.--In 
                        implementing the Program, the Secretary shall 
                        use money collected pursuant to section 
                        3406(c)(1) of the Central Valley Project 
                        Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) to 
                        acquire from voluntary sellers water from 
                        streams tributary to the San Joaquin River or 
                        other sources for the purposes set forth in 
                        subclauses (I) through (III) of clause (iv).
                          (vi) Purpose.--The purpose of the authority 
                        and direction provided to the Secretary in 
                        clause (iv) is to provide greater flexibility 
                        in meeting the existing water quality standards 
                        and objectives for which the Central Valley 
                        Project has responsibility so as to reduce the 
                        demand on water from New Melones Reservoir used 
                        for that purpose and to allow the Secretary to 
                        meet with greater frequency the Secretary's 
                        obligations to Central Valley Project 
                        contractors from the New Melones Project.
                  (C) Water use efficiency.--Activities under this 
                subparagraph consist of--
                          (i) water conservation projects that provide 
                        water supply reliability, water quality, and 
                        ecosystem benefits to the Bay-Delta system;
                          (ii) technical assistance for urban and 
                        agricultural water conservation projects;
                          (iii) water recycling and desalination 
                        projects, including groundwater remediation 
                        projects and projects identified in the Bay 
                        Area Water Plan and the Southern California 
                        Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study 
                        and other projects, giving priority to projects 
                        that include regional solutions to benefit 
                        regional water supply and reliability needs;
                                  (I) The Secretary shall review any 
                                feasibility level studies for seawater 
                                desalination and regional brine line 
                                projects that have been completed, 
                                whether or not those studies were 
                                prepared with financial assistance from 
                                the Secretary.
                                  (II) The Secretary shall report to 
                                the Congress not later than 90 days 
                                after the completion of a feasibility 
                                study or the review of a feasibility 
                                study. For the purposes of this Act, 
                                the Secretary is authorized to provide 
                                assistance for projects as set forth 
                                and pursuant to the existing 
                                requirements of the Reclamation 
                                Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
                                Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575; 
                                title 16) as amended, and Reclamation 
                                Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 
                                1996 (Public Law 104-266).
                          (iv) water measurement and transfer actions.
                          (v) certification of implementation of best 
                        management practices for urban water 
                        conservation; and
                          (vi) projects identified in the Southern 
                        California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and 
                        Reuse Study, dated April 2001 and authorized by 
                        section 1606 of the Reclamation Wastewater and 
                        Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 
                        390h-4); and the San Francisco Bay Area 
                        Regional Water Recycling Program described in 
                        the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water 
                        Recycling Program Recycled Water Master Plan, 
                        dated December 1999 and authorized by section 
                        1611 of the Reclamation Wastewater and 
                        Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 
                        390h-9) are determined to be feasible.
                  (D) Water transfers.--Activities under this 
                subparagraph consist of--
                          (i) increasing the availability of existing 
                        facilities for water transfers;
                          (ii) lowering transaction costs through 
                        regulatory coordination as provided in sections 
                        301 through 302; and
                          (iii) maintaining a water transfer 
                        information clearinghouse.
                  (E) Integrated regional water management plans.--
                Activities under this subparagraph consist of assisting 
                local and regional communities in the State in 
                developing and implementing integrated regional water 
                management plans to carry out projects and programs 
                that improve water supply reliability, water quality, 
                ecosystem restoration, and flood protection, or meet 
                other local and regional needs, in a manner that is 
                consistent with, and makes a significant contribution 
                to, the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
                  (F) Ecosystem restoration.--
                          (i) Activities under this subparagraph 
                        consist of--
                                  (I) implementation of large-scale 
                                restoration projects in San Francisco 
                                Bay and the Delta and its tributaries;
                                  (II) restoration of habitat in the 
                                Delta, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay 
                                and Marsh, including tidal wetland and 
                                riparian habitat;
                                  (III) fish screen and fish passage 
                                improvement projects; including the 
                                Sacramento River Small Diversion Fish 
                                Screen Program.
                                  (IV) implementation of an invasive 
                                species program, including prevention, 
                                control, and eradication;
                                  (V) development and integration of 
                                Federal and State agricultural programs 
                                that benefit wildlife into the 
                                Ecosystem Restoration Program;
                                  (VI) financial and technical support 
                                for locally-based collaborative 
                                programs to restore habitat while 
                                addressing the concerns of local 
                                communities;
                                  (VII) water quality improvement 
                                projects to manage and reduce 
                                concentrations of salinity, selenium, 
                                mercury, pesticides, trace metals, 
                                dissolved oxygen, turbidity, sediment, 
                                and other pollutants;
                                  (VIII) land and water acquisitions to 
                                improve habitat and fish spawning and 
                                survival in the Delta and its 
                                tributaries;
                                  (IX) integrated flood management, 
                                ecosystem restoration, and levee 
                                protection projects;
                                  (X) scientific evaluations and 
                                targeted research on Program 
                                activities; and
                                  (XI) strategic planning and tracking 
                                of Program performance.
                                  (XII) Preparation of management plans 
                                for all properties acquired, and update 
                                current management plans, prior to the 
                                purchase or any contribution to the 
                                purchase of any interest in land for 
                                ecosystem
                          (ii) A restoration management plan report.--
                        The Secretary shall submit a restoration 
                        management plan report to Congress, 30 days 
                        (not including days on which either the House 
                        of Representatives or the Senate is not in 
                        session because of an adjournment of more than 
                        three calendar days to a day certain) prior to 
                        implementing ecosystem restoration actions as 
                        described under this paragraph. Such plan 
                        reports shall be required for all ecosystem 
                        projects, (including comprehensive projects 
                        that are composed of several components and are 
                        to be completed by staged implementation) 
                        exceeding $20,000 in Federal funds. The 
                        Restoration Management Plan required to be 
                        submitted under this paragraph, shall, at a 
                        minimum--
                                  (I) be consistent with the goal of 
                                fish, wildlife, and habitat 
                                improvement;
                                  (II) be consistent with all 
                                applicable Federal and State laws;
                                  (III) describe the specific goals, 
                                objectives, and opportunities and 
                                implementation timeline of the proposed 
                                project. Describe to what extent the 
                                proposed project is a part of a larger, 
                                more comprehensive project in the Bay-
                                Delta watershed.
                                  (IV) describe the administration 
                                responsibilities of land and water 
                                areas and associated environmental 
                                resources, in the affected project area 
                                including an accounting of all habitat 
                                types. Cost-share arrangements with 
                                cooperating agencies should be included 
                                in the report.
                                  (V) describe the resource data and 
                                ecological monitoring data to be 
                                collected for the restoration projects 
                                and how the data are to be integrated, 
                                streamlined, and designed to measure 
                                the effectiveness and overall trend of 
                                ecosystem health in the Bay-Delta 
                                watershed.
                                  (VI) identify various combinations of 
                                land and water uses and resource 
                                management practices that are 
                                scientifically-based and meet the 
                                purposes of the project. Include a 
                                description of expected benefits of the 
                                restoration project relative to the 
                                cost of the project.
                                  (VII) analyze and describe cumulative 
                                impacts of project implementation, 
                                including land acquisition, and the 
                                mitigation requirements, subject to 
                                conditions described in clause 
                                (iii)(I). Complete appropriate actions 
                                to satisfy requirements of NEPA, CEQA, 
                                and other environmental permitting 
                                clearance.
                                  (VIII) describe an integrated 
                                monitoring plan and measurable 
                                criteria, or bio-indicators, to be used 
                                for evaluating cost-effective 
                                performance of the project.
                          (iii) Conditions.--Conditions, if applicable, 
                        for projects and activities under this 
                        paragraph, and which are to be described in the 
                        restoration management plan report, are as 
                        follows:
                                  (I) a requirement that before 
                                obligating or expending Federal funds 
                                to acquire land, the Secretary shall 
                                first determine that existing Federal 
                                land, State land, or other land 
                                acquired for ecosystem restoration with 
                                amounts provided by the United States 
                                or the State, to the extent such lands 
                                are available within the Calfed 
                                solution area, is not available for 
                                that purpose. If no public land is 
                                available the Secretary, prior to any 
                                federal expenditure for private land 
                                acquisitions, shall--
                                          (aa) not convert prime farm 
                                        land and unique farm land, to 
                                        the maximum extent as 
                                        practicable, as identified by 
                                        local, State, or Federal land 
                                        use inventories, including the 
                                        Natural Resources Conservation 
                                        Service;
                                          (bb) not conflict with 
                                        existing zoning for agriculture 
                                        use; and
                                          (cc) not involve other 
                                        changes in existing environment 
                                        due to location and nature of 
                                        converting farmland to non-
                                        farmland use.
                                  (II) a requirement that in 
                                determining whether to acquire private 
                                land for ecosystem restoration, the 
                                Secretary shall--
                                          (aa) conduct appropriate 
                                        analysis, including cost 
                                        valuation to assure that 
                                        private land acquisitions 
                                        prioritize easements and leases 
                                        over acquisitions by fee title 
                                        unless easements and leases are 
                                        unavailable or unsuitable for 
                                        the stated purposes;
                                          (bb) consider and partner 
                                        with landowners and local 
                                        agencies to develop cooperating 
                                        landowner commitments that are 
                                        likely to meet coequal 
                                        objectives of achieving local 
                                        economic and social goals and 
                                        implementing the ecosystem 
                                        restoration goals.
                                          (cc) consider the potential 
                                        cumulative impacts of fee 
                                        title, easement, or lease 
                                        acquisition on the local and 
                                        regional economies and adjacent 
                                        land and landowners, of 
                                        transferring the property into 
                                        government ownership, and--
                                                  (AA) describe the 
                                                actions that will be 
                                                taken, to the maximum 
                                                extent practicable, to 
                                                mitigate any induced 
                                                damages; and
                                                  (BB) determine and 
                                                describe the degree to 
                                                which land acquired 
                                                will add value to fish, 
                                                wildlife, and habitat 
                                                purposes.
                          (iv) Annual ecosystem restoration project 
                        summary report.--The Secretary shall, by no 
                        later than December 31 of each year, submit to 
                        Congress an annual report on the use of 
                        financial assistance received under this title. 
                        The report shall highlight progress of project 
                        implementation, effectiveness, monitoring, and 
                        accomplishment. The report will identify and 
                        outline the need for amendments or revisions to 
                        the plan to improve the cost-effectiveness of 
                        project implementation.
                  (G) Watersheds.--Activities under this subparagraph 
                consist of--
                          (i) building local capacity to assess and 
                        manage watersheds affecting the Calfed Bay-
                        Delta system;
                          (ii) technical assistance for watershed 
                        assessments and management plans; and
                          (iii) developing and implementing locally-
                        based watershed conservation, maintenance, and 
                        restoration actions.
                  (H) Water quality.--Activities under this 
                subparagraph consist of--
                          (i) addressing drainage problems in the San 
                        Joaquin Valley to improve downstream water 
                        quality (including habitat restoration projects 
                        that reduce drainage and improve water quality) 
                        if--
                                  (I) a plan is in place for monitoring 
                                downstream water quality improvements;
                                  (II) State and local agencies are 
                                consulted on the activities to be 
                                funded; and
                                  (III) except that no right, benefit, 
                                or privilege is created as a result of 
                                this clause;
                          (ii) implementation of source control 
                        programs in the Delta and its tributaries;
                          (iii) developing recommendations through 
                        scientific panels and advisory council 
                        processes to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta Program 
                        goal of continuous improvement in Delta water 
                        quality for all uses;
                          (iv) investing in treatment technology 
                        demonstration projects;
                          (v) controlling runoff into the California 
                        aqueduct, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and other 
                        similar conveyances;
                          (vi) addressing water quality problems at the 
                        North Bay Aqueduct;
                          (vii) supporting and participating in the 
                        development of projects to enable San Francisco 
                        Area water districts and water entities in San 
                        Joaquin and Sacramento counties to work 
                        cooperatively to address their water quality 
                        and supply reliability issues, including--
                                  (I) connections between aqueducts, 
                                water transfers, water conservation 
                                measures, institutional arrangements, 
                                and infrastructure improvements that 
                                encourage regional approaches; and
                                  (II) investigations and studies of 
                                available capacity in a project to 
                                deliver water to the East Bay Municipal 
                                Utility District under its contract 
                                with the Bureau of Reclamation, dated 
                                July 20, 2001, in order to determine if 
                                such capacity can be used to meet the 
                                objectives of this clause;
                          (viii) development of water quality exchanges 
                        and other programs to make high quality water 
                        available for urban and other users;
                          (ix) development and implementation of a plan 
                        to meet all water quality standards for which 
                        the Federal and State water projects have 
                        responsibility;
                          (x) development of recommendations through 
                        technical panels and advisory council processes 
                        to meet the Calfed Bay-Delta Program goal of 
                        continuous improvement in water quality for all 
                        uses; and
                          (xi) projects that may meet the framework of 
                        the water quality component of the Calfed Bay-
                        Delta Program.
                  (I) Science.--Activities under this subparagraph 
                consist of--
                          (i) establishing and maintaining an 
                        independent science board, technical panels, 
                        and standing boards to provide oversight and 
                        peer review of the Program;
                          (ii) conducting expert evaluations and 
                        scientific assessments of all Program elements;
                          (iii) coordinating existing monitoring and 
                        scientific research programs;
                          (iv) developing and implementing adaptive 
                        management experiments to test, refine, and 
                        improve scientific understandings;
                          (v) establishing performance measures, and 
                        monitoring and evaluating the performance of 
                        all Program elements; and
                          (vi) preparing an annual science report.
                  (J) Diversification of water supplies.--Activities 
                under this subparagraph consist of actions to diversify 
                sources of level 2 refuge supplies and modes of 
                delivery to refuges.
          (6) New and expanded authorizations for federal agencies.--
        The Secretary and the heads of the Federal agencies described 
        in the Record of Decision are authorized to carry out the 
        activities described in paragraph (7) during each of fiscal 
        years 2005 through 2008, in coordination with the Bay-Delta 
        Authority.
          (7) Description of activities under new and expanded 
        authorizations.--
                  (A) Conveyance.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated under section 110, not more than 
                $184,000,000 may be expended for the following:
                          (i) Feasibility studies, evaluation, and 
                        implementation of the San Luis Reservoir 
                        lowpoint improvement project.
                          (ii) Feasibility studies and actions at 
                        Franks Tract to improve water quality in the 
                        Delta.
                          (iii) Feasibility studies and design of fish 
                        screen and intake facilities at Clifton Court 
                        Forebay and the Tracy Pumping Plant facilities.
                          (iv) Design and construction of the 
                        relocation of drinking water intake facilities 
                        to delta water users. The Secretary shall 
                        coordinate actions for relocating intake 
                        facilities on a time schedule consistent with 
                        subparagraph (5)(B)(i)(I)(bb) or other actions 
                        necessary to offset the degradation of drinking 
                        water quality in the Delta due to the South 
                        Delta Improvement Program.
                          (v) In addition to the other authorizations 
                        granted to the Secretary by this title, the 
                        Secretary shall acquire water from willing 
                        sellers and undertake other actions designed to 
                        decrease releases from New Melones Reservoir 
                        for meeting water quality standards and flow 
                        objectives for which the Central Valley Project 
                        has responsibility in order to meet allocations 
                        to Central Valley Project contractors from the 
                        New Melones Project. Of the amounts authorized 
                        to be appropriated under paragraph (7)(A), not 
                        more than $5,260,000 may be expended for this 
                        purpose.
                  (B) Environmental water account.--Of the amounts 
                authorized to be appropriated under section 110, not 
                more than $90,000,000 may be expended for 
                implementation of the Environmental Water Account 
                provided that such expenditures shall be considered a 
                nonreimbursable Federal expenditure. In order to reduce 
                the use of New Melones reservoir as a source of water 
                to meet water quality standards, the Secretary may use 
                the Environmental Water Account to purchase water to 
                provide flow for fisheries, to improve water quality in 
                the San Joaquin river and Delta.
                  (C) Levee stability.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated under section 110, not more than 
                $90,000,000 may be expended for--
                          (i) reconstructing Delta levees to a base 
                        level of protection;
                          (ii) enhancing the stability of levees that 
                        have particular importance in the system 
                        through the Delta Levee Special Improvement 
                        Projects program;
                          (iii) developing best management practices to 
                        control and reverse land subsidence on Delta 
                        islands;
                          (iv) refining the Delta Emergency Plan;
                          (v) developing a Delta Risk Management 
                        Strategy after assessing the consequences of 
                        Delta levee failure from floods, seepage, 
                        subsidence, and earthquakes;
                          (vi) developing a strategy for reuse of 
                        dredged materials on Delta islands;
                          (vii) evaluating, and where appropriate, 
                        rehabilitating the Suisun Marsh levees; and
                          (viii) not more than $2,000,000 may be 
                        expended for integrated flood management, 
                        ecosystem restoration, and levee protection 
                        projects, including design and construction of 
                        lower San Joaquin River and lower Mokelumne 
                        River floodway improvements and other projects 
                        under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Comprehensive 
                        Study.
                  (D) Program management, oversight, and 
                coordination.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
                appropriated under section 110, not more than 
                $25,000,000 may be expended by the Secretary or the 
                other heads of Federal agencies, either directly or 
                through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements 
                with agencies of the State, for--
                          (i) program support;
                          (ii) program-wide tracking of schedules, 
                        finances, and performance;
                          (iii) multiagency oversight and coordination 
                        of Program activities to ensure Program balance 
                        and integration;
                          (iv) development of interagency cross-cut 
                        budgets and a comprehensive finance plan to 
                        allocate costs in accordance with the 
                        beneficiary pays provisions of the Record of 
                        Decision;
                          (v) coordination of public outreach and 
                        involvement, including tribal, environmental 
                        justice, and public advisory activities in 
                        accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
                        Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
                          (vi) development of Annual Reports.

SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT.

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

SEC. 105. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

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

SEC. 106. CROSSCUT BUDGET.

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

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.

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

SEC. 108. USE OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND FUNDS.

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

SEC. 109. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

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

SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

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

 TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY COORDINATION OFFICES

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES.

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

SEC. 202. ACCEPTANCE AND EXPENDITURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

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

                 TITLE III--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM

SEC. 301. RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM.

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

                   TITLE IV--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM

SEC. 401. SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM.

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

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 2828 is to enhance and improve water 
supply, water yield, and water reliability while improving 
water quality and protecting the environment.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In general

    An evolving legal framework, interstate cooperation, tribal 
and bi-national water issues, environmental compliance, growth 
and an extended critical dry period that rivals the 1930s 
drought all present serious challenges for water users and 
governments throughout the Nation. With fully-appropriated 
river basins, overdrafting of ground water systems, and 
increasing requirements for clean and safe water, addressing 
these issues will not be easy.
    The 1900s saw a proliferation of ``watershed initiatives'' 
in which stakeholders from a variety of governmental levels and 
jurisdictions joined with non-governmental stakeholders to seek 
innovative and pragmatic solutions to the problems associated 
with resource degradation and overuse. Although these 
initiatives share many common qualities, they are notable for 
their variety of structures and functions, a predictable 
feature that each watershed initiative is an ad hoc effort 
tailored to the unique institutional and physical qualities of 
the particular region. Despite their positive qualities, 
watershed initiatives have limited effectiveness because they 
cannot operate at the scale necessary to solve some broad 
problems or mobilize the necessary resources to do so. H.R. 
2828 attempts to build on existing efforts to better use the 
limited water supplies in California.
    H.R. 2828 recognizes the importance of improving management 
and coordination of existing water supply projects for meeting 
present and future demands for water in the State of 
California. Preserving and enhancing the ecosystem, while 
developing new sources of water for growing consumptive needs, 
and apportioning existing supplies to meet changing demands is 
a great challenge. Making opportunities and investing in water 
management options that can be integrated with more traditional 
water supply infrastructure is a necessary means to future 
water security. H.R. 2828 stresses the need for water users and 
water user types to better cooperate and integrate their 
actions to improve water management to solve broad, multi-
dimensional issues. The bill would also bring a focus to 
developing integrated, regionally-based water management plans 
as a necessary means to help resolve growing conflicts and 
foster cooperation between agencies, utilities, and public 
interests.
    The retention of existing water supplies and the 
development of critically needed new supplies are of the utmost 
importance throughout the West. Supplies are already inadequate 
for the growing demands, but very few plans exist to develop 
supplies to meet increasing needs. The fact that additional 
storage and other water development projects are necessary to 
meet anticipated needs is a simple reality, mandated by 
population and demographic information, which cannot be 
ignored.
    The federal government should adopt a policy of supporting 
new projects to enhance water supplies and encouraging state 
and local interests to take the lead in the formulation of 
those projects. Local interests have shown enormous creativity 
in designing creative water development projects. Underground 
water banking programs have been successfully developed in some 
parts of the West which store flood waters at abundant times 
and draw water out when needed, all without large negative 
environmental effects. New and expanded surface water storage, 
both on-stream and off-stream, groundwater banking, and 
countless other forms of water development should be 
encouraged. The Calfed Bay-Delta Program recognizes the 
importance of water storage and conveyance for improving water 
supply reliability, water quality, and fish, wildlife and 
habitat restoration, and flood management. H.R. 2828 builds on 
this existing program to provide greater water security for all 
interests in California.

The Calfed Bay-Delta Program

    The Bay-Delta is the region east of San Francisco Bay, 
where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge. It 
supplies drinking water to over two-thirds of the people of 
California and irrigation water for over seven million acres of 
highly productive agricultural land. The Bay-Delta is the 
largest estuary on the west coast of the United States, and 
supports over 750 plant and animal species. It is also the hub 
of two massive water projects, the Central Valley Project 
(operated by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the 
Interior) and the State Water Project (operated by the State of 
California Department of Water Resources). These two projects 
divert between 20 to 70 percent of natural water flows in the 
region depending on water conditions. The Bay-Delta also marks 
the boundary between northern California where most of the 
State's water supply originates and southern California where 
most of the population and demand for water exists. On average, 
in normal water years, over 5 million acre-feet \1\ of water is 
exported south of the Bay-Delta by the two projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ An acre-foot is the traditional measurement of water quantity 
and is the amount of water which will cover one acre to a depth of one 
foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bay-Delta is in decline due to decades of competing 
demands for its limited water resources. The area has 
experienced serious problems relating to water quality and fish 
and wildlife, raising compliance issues with the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). Generally because of these issues relating 
to ESA, State and federal officials and representatives of 
agricultural, urban and environmental stakeholders signed an 
agreement that is known as the Bay-Delta Accord. This December 
1994 document provided interim measures for ecosystem 
restoration and regulatory stability. The Calfed program, a 
cooperative interagency effort, began in 1995 with agencies 
relying on existing statutory authority to undertake Calfed 
Program activities. The federal agency participants in the 
Program are: the Department of the Interior (including the 
Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey); the 
Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; the Department of Commerce (including the National 
Marine Fisheries Service); the Department of Agriculture 
(including the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the 
U.S. Forest Service); and the Western Area Power 
Administration. The State agencies involved are the Resources 
Agency of California (including the Department of Water 
Resources; theDepartment of Fish and Game; the Reclamation 
Board; the Delta Protection Commission; the Department of Conservation; 
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; the 
Department of Parks and Recreation; and the California Bay-Delta 
Authority); the California Environmental Protection Agency (including 
the State Water Resources Control Board); the California Department of 
Food and Agriculture; and the Department of Health Services.
    Stakeholders, including representatives of agricultural, 
urban, environmental, fishery, and business interests, and 
Indian tribes and rural counties, all participate in the 
collaborative effort. Input is provided through the California 
Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee established pursuant to the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    To develop a long-term program, the Calfed Program 
undertook an extensive planning effort. This resulted in a June 
1999 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and a July 2000 Final 
Programmatic EIS/EIR. On June 9, 2000, an agreement entitled 
``California's Water Future: A Framework for Action,'' was 
released. On August 28, 2000, the federal and State agencies 
released a Record of Decision (ROD) setting forth a 
programmatic 30-year long-term plan for the Bay-Delta.
    The ROD selects a preferred alternative for the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program, setting forth the long-term, overall direction 
of the Program. The ROD provides that the Calfed Bay-Delta 
Program continue as a federal-State partnership to build a 
framework for managing water in California. Under the ROD, the 
Calfed Program has the following components: water storage, 
ecosystem restoration; water supply reliability; water 
conveyance; water use efficiency; water quality; water 
transfers; watersheds; an Environmental Water Account; levee 
stability; governance; and science. The ROD describes the 
Calfed Bay-Delta Program as one of the most intensive water 
conservation efforts ever proposed, the most far-reaching 
effort to improve drinking water quality for most Californians, 
and the most significant investment in water storage and 
conveyance in California in decades.

The goals of H.R. 2828

    The intent of Title I of the reported bill is to improve 
water supply reliability and water quality while enhancing the 
environment in the State of California. By reauthorizing 
federal participation in Calfed, the bill helps California 
reduce its demand on imported northern California and Colorado 
River water and to treat impaired groundwater. The Title 
recognizes the need to develop both traditional and non 
traditional water projects throughout the State. The Title also 
emphasizes the need for new and expanded surface and 
groundwater storage facilities. The Title also encourages 
improved water conveyance to restore water project reliability 
and operational flexibility, provide for more opportunities to 
transfer and store water, and mechanisms to protect and enhance 
water quality. The Title would also establish the Department of 
the Interior as the lead federal agency to coordinate the 
activities of participating federal agencies to: (1) utilize 
existing authorities and federal monies to accomplish the 
implementation of Calfed-related projects by respective 
agencies (as outlined in previous Subcommittee on Water 
hearings on Calfed cross-cut budgets); and (2) identify what 
new authorities are necessary for committing agencies to 
accomplishing projects, and determine appropriate funding needs 
under the Calfed Program.
    Title II of the reported bill directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish a centralized office in Sacramento, 
California, for the use of all federal and State agencies 
involved in issuing permits and preparing environmental 
documentation for projects authorized under H.R. 2828. In 
addition, the Title authorizes the creation of other such 
offices in each of the 17 Reclamation States \2\ to provide 
coordinated regulatory approaches to federal permitting 
activities, including environmental reviews, if so requested to 
do so by the Governor of each State. Many believe the principle 
barrier to resolving present and future water conflicts is the 
multiple and sometimes overlapping regulatory and agency 
coverage of critical issues. The adverse consequences of 
uncoordinated activities adds unnecessary cost and time to 
water management projects. Title II is modeled after recently 
authorized language that provides the City of San Francisco the 
option to create a federal regulatory coordination office in 
which all permits, licenses or other agency approvals necessary 
for project implementation would occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ These are the 17 western States in which the Bureau of 
Reclamation is authorized to operate, namely Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and 
Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of the Interior is in the process of 
developing a rural water program. Title III will authorize a 
study to determine the feasibility of planning, designing, and 
constructing rural water systems in the Reclamation States. A 
report shall be submitted to Congress describing the 
feasibility of such a program.
    Title IV authorizes the Department of the Interior to study 
the feasibility of reclaiming the Salton Sea, a land-locked 
saline body of water initially created by the flooding of the 
Colorado River in the early 20th century and now primarily 
sustained by agricultural irrigation flows. The Sea continues 
to grow more saline, prompting calls from various groups to 
protect the Sea from permanent and potentially wildlife-harming 
levels of hyper-salinity. Since the Title recognizes the 
realities and complexities of current studies to resolve this 
situation, the general language does not direct funding toward 
a specific solution. The State of California is currently 
conducting a feasibility study, including investigations of 
possible reclamation options and an action plan, for reclaiming 
the Salton Sea. The projected completion date of the 
feasibility study is 2006.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2828 was introduced by Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA) 
on July 23, 2003. The bill was primarily referred to the 
Committee on Resources and additionally to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee on 
Resources, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Water 
and Power. That Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2828 on 
July 24, 2003. On September 25, 2003, the Subcommittee met to 
consider the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was 
forwarded to the Full Resources Committee by voice vote. On 
May5, 2004, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 
Congressman Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which reflected 
modified language from S. 1097, a Senate companion bill authored by 
Senator Dianne Feinstein. In addition to this language, the amendment 
recognized the general framework of the 2000 Calfed Bay-Delta Program's 
ROD; included provisions which address necessary and specific policy 
issues for providing water quality and water level protections for 
users of Bay-Delta water supplies as a prerequisite to increasing 
export pumping from the Bay-Delta; provided that Calfed storage 
projects are subject to a feasibility study requirement and if Congress 
does not act to disapprove the study in 120 legislative days, then 
construction is authorized subject to appropriation of the necessary 
funds; and included management plan and accountability reporting 
requirements relating to the implementation of ecosystem restoration 
projects.
    The Calvert amendment also reorganized the introduced bill. 
The amendment eliminated Title I (Department of the Interior, 
Competitive Grants Program). In addition, Title III of the 
introduced bill (Salton Sea) was amended to remove the $300 
million general authorization for the reclamation of the Salton 
Sea and to include a provision to conduct a feasibility study 
to identify a restoration plan. Title V of the introduced bill 
(Rural Water Supply Program) was amended to reduce the 
requirement that the Secretary of the Interior develop a 
program for the planning, design, and construction of rural 
water supply programs, but rather required the Secretary to 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing 
rural water systems.
    An en bloc amendment to the Calvert amendment in the nature 
of a substitute was offered by Congresswoman Grace Napolitano 
(D-CA). The en bloc amendment deems all projects included in 
the two water reclamation and reuse reports referenced in Title 
I of the amendment to be feasible. The en bloc amendment was 
agreed to by voice vote.
    Congressman George Miller (D-CA) offered a substitute 
amendment to the Calvert amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. This amendment included the text of S. 1097 as 
ordered reported from the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources on April 28, 2004. The Miller amendment was 
not adopted by a rollcall vote of 11-28, as follows:


    The Calvert amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended, was approved by voice vote. The bill as amended was 
then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives 
by voice vote.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

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

    TITLE I--CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT


Section 101. Short title

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

Section 102. Definitions

    This section includes the definitions of terms used in the 
legislation.

Section 103. Bay-Delta Program

    Section 103(a)(1). Record of Decision as General Framework. 
The intent of this paragraph is to recognize the 2000 Calfed 
Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD) as a general 
framework for completing activities in the bill. A major 
milestone was accomplished when the Calfed Program released the 
ROD under the National Environmental Policy Act in 2000. The 
ROD provides the framework to address these issues through a 
sustained, long-term effort by the Calfed agencies and 
stakeholder groups. The ROD provides set out actions to be 
included in Stage 1 of the Calfed Program, which is to cover 
the first seven years of a 30-year program, and builds the 
foundation for long-term actions. However, the Congressional 
authorization for federal participation in the Calfed Program 
has expired, and the House Committee on Appropriations is not 
committed to appropriate additional funding for the Program 
until it is reauthorized.
    Section 103(a)(2). Specific Activities. The purpose of this 
paragraph is to require that activities conducted and 
authorized by this legislation improve water supply reliability 
and water quality while improving the environment in the State 
of California. The Committee expects that all Calfed Program 
objectives (i.e., water supply and water yield, water quality, 
habitat improvements, and levee work) will be met continuously.
    Section 103(b)(1). In General. This paragraph authorizes 
the Secretary of the Interior and heads of the Calfed agencies 
to carry the activities described in this legislation and that 
are components of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
    Section 103(b)(2). Multiple Benefit Projects Favored. 
Projects and programs that meet multiple Calfed Program 
components and benefits are emphasized.
    Section 103(b)(3). Balance. The intent of this paragraph is 
to ensure that all Calfed Bay-Delta Program components progress 
in a balanced manner. The Committee believes that water storage 
and basic infrastructure needs were not adequately addressed in 
the initial years of the Calfed Program. It is the intent of 
the Committee that future funding shall be allocated such that 
there is balance in increasing water supply and water yield, 
while improving water quality and restoring the environment. As 
the ROD indicates, solutions shall focus on solving problems in 
all areas of Calfed, and no Program components will be left 
behind.
    Section 103(b)(4). Existing Authorizations for Federal 
Agencies. This paragraph authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior and the heads of the federal agencies identified in 
the ROD to fund and undertake specific activities described in 
the ROD, subject to the provisions of this Title, to the 
fullest extent under existing authorities. The provisions of 
this section and in Section 103(b)(5)(A) specifically 
authorizes the Secretary to conduct all necessary feasibility 
studies to implement the Calfed storage program as set forth 
and described in the ROD. No further Congressional 
authorization for the conduct of feasibility studies on each of 
the storage projects identified in the Calfed ROD is necessary.
    Section 103(b)(5)(A). Water Storage and Water Yield. The 
purpose of this subparagraph is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to undertake all necessary planning activities and 
feasibility studies for Congressional approval of the 
construction of specific surface water storage features, 
surface water and ground water conjunctive management projects, 
and ground water storage projects related to the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program.
    The expansion of water storage features related to the 
federal and State water projects last occurred in the 1960s; 
however, the State of California population has more than 
doubled since then. The intent of this paragraph is to 
emphasize the importance of increased water supply reliability 
and improved water yield for agricultural, domestic, and 
environmental needs. New and expanded storage facilities 
increase control and regulation of water for enhancing the 
ability of transferring and conveying water to other users. 
Storage improves system flexibility for managing water supply 
and demand to reduce conflict between competing users.
    The Committee believes the existing procedures for 
developing additional supplies should be revised to streamline 
project approval. By the time project applicants approach 
federal agencies for authorization to construct multi-million 
dollar projects, they have already invested extensive resources 
toward analyzing project alternatives to determine which 
project is best suited to their budgetary constraints. The 
appraisal and feasibility planning processes, the federal and 
state environmental impact analysis and environmental reporting 
procedures, regulatory permitting requirements, and 
Administration review and approval can take a long time.
    The Committee heard in testimony that the length of time 
required to complete the appraisal and feasibility studies can 
take as long as 12 years for large projects. It is not the 
intent of this legislation to expedite or abbreviate the 
detailed study, environmental compliance, and approval process 
requirements. However, the Committee believes the lengthy 
approval period can be streamlined. As such, the Committee will 
require a Congressional disapproval process to authorize 
construction of storage features under this Title. This process 
would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit to 
Congress, if feasible, any project that meets the conditions 
outlined in the legislation. If Congress does not pass a 
disapproval resolution within a 120-day legislative period, the 
project would then be authorized, subject to appropriation of 
necessary funds. The intent is not to over-simplify the 
feasibility study process for storage and conveyance projects. 
All studies will continue to be subject to review and approval 
by the Administration, and to National Environmental Policy 
Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other 
environmental review and permitting prior to being submitted 
for Congressional approval.
    The 120-day disapproval resolution provision is not a 
precedent-setting measure. The Bureau of Reclamation currently 
has Congressional authority to continue with structural 
remediation measures related to the Department of the 
Interior's Safety of Dams Program. The 1978 Safety of Dams Act, 
as amended, includes a 30-day Congressional approval period. If 
Congress does not approve a Secretary of the Interior 
Feasibility Report within this time frame, the Secretary has 
the discretion to move ahead on implementing the measure.
    In addition, a provision in the 1939 Reclamation Act (43 
U.S.C. 485h) gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority 
to conduct feasibility studies on Reclamation projects and the 
authority to proceed with construction if deemed feasible. An 
Act of Congress is only required if the feasibility study does 
not deem the project feasible or allocable costs do not equal 
total estimated costs.
    In another example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has 
discretion to implement specifically defined projects under a 
Continuing Authorities Projects program. Under the program the 
Corps can plan, design, and construct small water resource and 
ecosystem restoration projects. These projects do not require 
project-specific authorization or funding levels; however each 
authority has federal funding limits. In the 1999 Water 
Resources Development Act Congress authorized the Corps' 
discretionary authority for the implementation of projects not 
costing more than $30 million. Under this authority, the 
Secretary of the Army is required to submit a report to 
Congressional Committees describing the project and whether the 
project meets certain conditions prior to implementation. The 
Secretary can then take appropriate action to implement the 
project after a 21-day period.
    Section 103 (b)(5)(B). Conveyance. The intent of this 
subparagraph is to recognize the requirement of improving water 
quality conditions of Bay-Delta supplies prior to increasing 
export pumping and additional diversions from the Bay-Delta. 
The Secretary and heads of the federal agencies are to 
undertake specific activities of the South Delta Improvement 
Program, including the installation of temporary and permanent 
flow control barriers, agricultural drainage reduction, San 
Joaquin floodway improvement, protection of local diversions 
and water supplies, and water quality to all users, including 
agricultural water diverters in the South Delta.
    Actions are also required to improve conveyance in the 
North Delta, including improved operations of Cross Delta 
Channel, evaluation of improved fish screening and the 
evaluation offloodway improvements. Requirements for 
constructing appropriate conveyance features, or interties, which 
connect existing water conveyance features of the federal and State 
water projects are also included.
    The intent of these provisions is to provide greater 
operational flexibility to meet existing water quality 
standards and to meet with greater frequency water delivery 
obligations for water contractors. Improved water conveyance 
increases the capability of the water system to convey water at 
times when it is available both in improved quantity and 
quality. Improved water conveyance reduces water losses by 
improving the ability of the delivery system to conserve and 
better manage existing supplies. Improved conveyance provides 
an assurance to willing sellers and buyers in water transfer 
proceedings that water will move to its new use, legal 
requirements of the transaction will be fulfilled, and the 
private property right to the water is protected.
    Another purpose of this paragraph is to include Secretarial 
requirements for implementing a Bay-Delta water quality program 
to meet all existing water quality standards and objectives for 
which the federal water project has responsibility. The 
legislation outlines a set of tools or options which the 
Secretary can implement, including a recirculation program, 
mandatory source control programs and improved drainage 
practice from wildlife refuges, and purchasing water from 
willing sellers for dilution purposes and meeting water quality 
and fish flow objectives. Section 103(b)(5)(B)(iv) places a 
restriction on the Secretary's ability to participate in 
activities that would increase export limits at the State of 
California's Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant for the limited 
purpose of conveying water to south-of-Delta Central Valley 
Project contractors. Nothing in this section prohibits the 
Secretary, the State of California, or the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers from participating in activities that will increase 
export limits at the Banks Pumping Plant for State Water 
Project contractors, the State Water Project, or any other 
purpose other than conveying water to south-of-Delta Central 
Valley Project contractors.
    Section 103(b)(5)(C). Water Use Efficiency. The 
implementation of water conservation projects which improve the 
efficiency of water delivery and use is important to the 
success of the Calfed Program. Conservation practices and 
improved water operations as well as infrastructure 
improvements will continue to be important for enhancing water 
supply reliability, improving water quality, and increasing 
ecosystem benefits to Bay-Delta system.
    This subparagraph also has the purpose of recognizing the 
importance of implementation of projects that involve non-
traditional water supply development. The legislation requires 
the Secretary to review feasibility studies and report to 
Congress within 90 days after the review of such studies and 
pursuant to Public Law 102-575, Title 16, as amended, and 
Public Law 104-266. Projects identified in the Southern 
California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study and 
the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program 
Recycled Water Master Plan include projects that may be added 
to those regional planning documents when they are updated by 
local authorities. In addition to projects identified in the 
aforementioned reports, the Secretary may carry out other 
projects which may be currently under study or in development 
that provide regional solutions to benefit regional water 
supply and reliability needs.
    Section 103(b)(5)(D). Water Transfers. The extent to which 
voluntary and market-based water transfers can be implemented 
to meet growing and changing water needs without causing damage 
to other legal water users is an issue to water users 
throughout the State of California. Market-based water 
transfers and transfer of water between willing parties are an 
integral part of the non-structural solution for resolving 
water deficiency problems. California has had much success in 
transferring water from one user to another to meet long-term 
water demands, for water banking purposes, and for short-term 
critical water shortage and high period demand. Being able to 
transfer water between users and exchange existing water 
supplies to meet the increasing competition for clean and 
dependable water is important to the future of California 
water. There is increased agreement by most water agencies, 
water users, and fishing interests in the desirability of water 
transfers and water banking.
    Section 103(b)(5)(E). Integrated Regional Water Management 
Plans. There is a greater need for water users and other 
interested parties to better cooperate and integrate their 
actions to improve water management responsibilities. The 
Calfed Bay-Delta Program emphasizes the implementation of 
projects that include regional water supply reliability, water 
quality improvements, ecosystem restorations, and flood 
protection.
    The intent of this subparagraph is to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior and heads of federal agencies to 
assist local and regional communities to develop and implement 
integrated water management plans which provide a significant 
contribution to the Calfed Bay Delta Program.
    Section 103(b)(5)(F). Ecosystem Restoration. The purpose of 
this subparagraph is to authorize the development and 
implementation of large-scale ecosystem restoration projects in 
the San Francisco Bay, Delta, and its tributaries to 
rehabilitate natural processes related to hydrology, stream 
channels, sediment, floodplains and ecosystem water quality. 
These projects include fish passage and fish screen 
improvements; invasive species control; integrating federal, 
state, and local habitat improvement programs into the 
Ecosystem Restoration Program; improving and maintaining water 
and sediment quality; and land and water acquisitions to 
improve wildlife habitat and fish spawning and survival in the 
Delta and its tributaries. This subparagraph requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct strategic planning and 
tracking of Program performance.
    It has been reported to the Committee in testimony that 
much federal and state money has been expended on ecosystem 
restoration projects in the last few years. To many Committee 
members, the implementation of ecosystem restoration projects 
appears to be haphazard without clearly defined goals and 
unintended consequences. The measurable outcome has focused on 
dollars spent rather than increased numbers of fish and 
wildlife and improved habitat.
    The intent of this provision is to provide a method of 
reporting to Congress the purpose and accomplishments of 
ecosystem restoration project implementation. The intent is to 
require Program accountability with an assurance that federal 
expenditures are being used appropriately to protect and 
restore functional habitats, including aquatic, upland and 
riparian, to allow species to thrive. This is a ``right-to-
know'' provision that provides reporting of accountability, 
progress, and accomplishments.
    This subparagraph requires the submission to Congress of a 
resource management plan, or action plan, for all ecosystem 
restoration projects to be implemented with an estimated cost 
greater than $20,000. This is a one-time report that assures 
careful analysis of alternatives including cost effectiveness, 
disclosure of impacts, identification of mitigation measures, 
if necessary, and the development of a monitoring plan prior to 
implementation. The report will also include a description of 
the degree to which and for what purpose a particular project 
is a part of a larger ecosystem restoration project. Such a 
report would assure a thorough and consistent process is 
completed which describes and recommends an ecosystem project 
based on a plan that meets the purposes of the Calfed Bay-Delta 
Program. This is not intended to be a report that requires 
Congressional approval prior to project implementation, but a 
report which discloses what the project is about and what 
actions will be taken to accomplish goals of the Calfed Bay-
Delta Program. Most, if not all, other federal projects, both 
structural and non-structural, implemented by federal agencies 
require feasibility approval and Congressional authorization. 
Ecosystem restoration projects in the Program, however, have 
not been required to submit an implementation report of any 
kind in the past.
    Additionally, an annual report will be required which 
tracks expenditures and documents accomplishments for the year. 
The intent of an annual report is to provide to Congress the 
progress of project implementation and describe successes of 
the project in terms of quantitative measures, or indicators, 
which were described in the initial resource management plan. 
The annual report will allow Congress and project sponsors to 
review progress and make revisions to project implementation, 
if necessary, to better serve project purposes. This report is 
in support of the adaptive management purposes of ecosystem 
restoration project implementation.
    The intent of the legislation is to disclose land 
management actions associated with ecosystem restoration 
implementation. Land acquisition actions associated with 
implementing ecosystem restoration projects is a concern to 
landowners and agricultural communities. The degree to which 
the agricultural community is affected and how land management 
actions affect regional and local farming industry and 
socioeconomics is important to landowners. The legislation 
promotes the best use of land for protection of local 
interests.
    The ROD contains very clear language on the topic of land 
acquisition: ``An important feature of the State's environment 
and economy, agricultural lands will be preserved during 
implementation of the Program in a manner consistent with 
meeting program goals, minimizing impacts to agriculture.'' If 
public land does not fulfill the project's purpose, land should 
be sought from ``willing participants,'' and easements, or 
working landscapes, are preferred over fee acquisitions for 
ecosystem restoration projects. The legislation requires the 
use of appropriate valuation processes to evaluate the cost 
effectiveness of proposed land actions and to assist in 
determining which land action is best suited for the 
restoration project. The provision also emphasizes willing 
participation and local involvement in land actions to 
accomplish mutual benefits.
    Section 103(b)(5)(G). Watersheds. The efforts of community-
based activities are contributing to successful implementation 
of small-scale projects at the local level to improve the 
management of land and water resources in California. Local 
efforts to maintain riparian zones along watercourses, provide 
outreach and education on water conservation opportunities, and 
land conservation practices are some of the activities that are 
occurring at the local level.
    The intent of this subparagraph is to promote locally-led 
watershed management activities that can contribute to the 
successful implementation of Calfed Program components, such as 
water quality improvement, water use efficiency, and habitat 
restoration. Agencies would provide technical assistance, as 
necessary, and build local capacity to assess and manage 
watersheds affecting the Bay-Delta system. Assisting locally-
based programs in the development of watershed management plans 
and actions could provide for coordinated implementation of 
activities that resolve regional issues as well.
    Section 103(b)(5)(H). Water Quality. The intent of this 
subparagraph is to develop and implement various elements of 
the Water Quality Program described in the ROD. The legislation 
provides for means to continuously improve Delta water quality 
for all uses, including in-Delta environmental and agricultural 
uses. The intent of the legislation is also to provide for good 
water quality for users who rely on the Delta for all or part 
of their drinking water. The differing situations for the many 
different water agencies which draw on the Delta require 
diverse approaches to drinking water quality that involve 
combinations of source water improvement, innovative and 
collaborative water management, and treatment options.
    The legislation includes several program actions that allow 
users to capture high quality water for drinking water 
purposes, reduce contaminants and salinity that impair Delta 
water quality, evaluate alternative approaches to drinking 
water treatment to address growing concerns over disinfection 
byproducts and salinity, and enable voluntary exchanges or 
purchases of high quality source waters for drinking water 
uses.
    None of the actions identified in the legislation, by 
itself, can assure adequate supplies of good drinking water. 
They must be pursued in conjunction with actions described in 
other sections and subsections, such as storage, conveyance, 
and ecosystem restoration actions to generate significant 
improvements in drinking water. The intent of the legislation 
is also for the federal agencies to continue to coordinate 
water quality improvement and protection efforts with local 
communities and stakeholders who are actively seeking to 
address water quality issues through pollution prevention and 
monitoring to improve water quality conditions from a regional 
perspective.
    It is also intended that federal agencies will seek to 
maintain the quality of existing and potential sources of 
drinking water supply, both ground water and surface water. For 
water projects that involve development of ground water and the 
conjunctive management of surface and ground water supplies, 
including ground water banking programs, agencies will work 
with local water management agencies and communities to assure 
that locations with the lowest level of pollutants and best 
quality sources economically available are identified.
    A number of existing water conveyance features are impacted 
by intercepted surface water runoff from adjacent agricultural 
and grazing lands, agricultural drainage systems, and storm 
water. Appropriate improvements, measures, and watershed 
programs are needed to correct theseproblems. Preventing and 
controlling runoff of these impaired waters into conveyance systems 
will ultimately improve water quality conditions of water deliveries.
    A number of water districts and water entities, including 
the San Francisco Bay Area and San Joaquin and Sacramento 
Counties, have commenced discussions to explore ways to improve 
water supply reliability for agricultural districts and for 
providing high quality water supplies at times when water 
quality conditions in the Delta are not favorable for 
diverters. The federal agencies can provide support to these 
local entities by participating in studies and investigations 
of utilizing available facilities and capacities to provide 
high quality water through operational agreements and system 
improvements. Such agreements will improve the flexibility of 
operating the system during critical periods of water supply 
deficits and low water quality. Infrastructure improvements and 
water conservation measures will improve the efficiency of 
water use and reduce water losses.
    Section 103(b)(5)(I). Science. Science is a cross-cutting 
element that is emphasized in all components of the Calfed 
Program. Sound science ensures the best investments are being 
made and results are being achieved, as well as to form 
strategies to reduce scientific uncertainties.
    The intent of this subparagraph is to establish a broad 
science program and develop new information and scientific 
interpretations necessary to implement, monitor, and evaluate 
the success of the Program. Independent science boards and 
panels would provide oversight and peer review of Program 
implementation and progress. It is intended that the Secretary 
of the Interior and the Governor of California would appoint 
members to the independent board, and specific science panels 
would be convened as needed.
    An important part of the science component of the Calfed 
Program is the development of performance measures and 
indicators for all Program components that will be used to 
track accomplishment and evaluate progress. New information 
will become available as implementation occurs and programs 
progress, and assessments and interpretations will be required 
and used to confirm or modify actions. Findings will be 
communicated to resource managers, agencies, and the public on 
the program achievements.
    Federal, state, and local agencies have been involved in 
implementing Program components within existing programs and 
funding mechanisms. However, little or no information on the 
progress and accomplishments to date on implementation of 
Program components has been made available. Baseline 
descriptions of conditions, cost-effectiveness of 
implementation measures, and progress in achieving desired 
results has not been forthcoming from project sponsors.
    The science program would have the role of coordinating 
ongoing research and monitoring efforts. Sharing information 
and making others aware of on-going efforts is necessary from a 
``lessons-learned'' perspective. Prioritizing science needs and 
assuring monitoring efforts that are not redundant and are 
conducted using peer reviewed methods and procedures are roles 
of the science program. The program would serve as a science 
clearinghouse for the agencies and would communicate findings 
on key issues on all components.
    Section 103(b)(6). New and Expanded Authorizations for 
Federal Agencies. The intent of this subsection is to grant new 
and expanded authorizations to carry out activities and 
programs that are components of Calfed Bay-Delta Program and 
are described in Section 103(b)(7).
    Section 103(b)(7)(A). Conveyance. Specific actions are 
required to optimize the use of the Delta as the means of 
conveyance of State and federal projects water supply to export 
pumping facilities located in the south Delta. Implementation 
of conveyance modifications are required to improve water 
supply reliability for in-Delta, south-of-Delta, and export 
water users, to support continuous improvement in drinking 
water quality, and to complement ecosystem restoration and 
protect fisheries.
    Increased flexibility and improved water supply reliability 
can be realized by revising the operating criteria of the San 
Luis Reservoir. By better utilizing the present capacity of 
reservoir and modifying operating criteria, the Reservoir would 
be able to provide additional water supplies at times when 
water of high quality in the Delta is not available for export. 
Additional studies are necessary to examine to what extent San 
Luis Reservoir can be utilized.
    Frank's Tract, a parcel of land within the Delta, is known 
to contribute to the low water quality conditions in the Delta. 
The levees which protected the island from high tides and Delta 
channel flows have not been maintained, resulting in back flows 
from the Tract which are high in organics and residual 
seawater. The proximity of the Tract to water intakes for 
municipal water districts causes water quality issues for 
domestic water supplies. Studies are necessary to describe a 
corrective action to reduce or eliminate the influence of the 
impaired water flowing from Frank's Tract on the Delta water 
supplies.
    Studies and designs of fish screens and export pumping 
intake facilities are needed for export purposes to withdraw 
waters of higher quality, and to provide better fish 
protection. Current facilities do not provide sufficient 
capacity and protection for projected increased Delta flow 
quantities and improved flow circulation for water quality 
purposes.
    Purchases of water from willing sellers could provide 
additional improvements in water quality by providing dilution 
flows to help meet water quality standards and flow objectives 
related to Delta inflows to south Delta channels. Use of 
voluntary water acquisitions could provide greater flexibility 
in system operations for improved water quality conditions and 
reduce the need on New Melones Reservoir to solely provide 
flows for dilution purposes. Not more than $5,260,000 of the 
amounts authorized under this provision may be expended for the 
purposes of acquiring water from willing sellers and to 
undertake actions to decrease releases from New Melones 
Reservoir for meeting water quality standards and flow 
objectives that are required of the Central Valley Project.
    The legislation authorizes $184,000,000 to complete 
activities described under this subparagraph.
    Section 103 (b)(7)(B). Environmental Water Account. Nothing 
in this subparagraph changes, alters, or modifies the purposes 
for which water purchased by the Environmental WaterAccount 
(EWA) may be used as defined by ROD. All expenditures made under the 
authority granted by this subparagraph must provide water for the 
protection and recovery of fish consistent with the EWA purposes as 
defined in the ROD. In implementing the authority provided by this 
subparagraph, the Secretary of the Interior is encouraged to consider 
actions in areas upstream of the Delta that protect and recover fish by 
improving flow conditions in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.
    There is to be authorized $90,000,000 to conduct activities 
related to the Environmental Water Account and identified in 
this subsection.
    Section 103 (b)(7)(C). Levee Stability. The Delta covers a 
vast expanse of productive farmland and wildlife habitat 
interlaced with hundreds of miles of waterways. Much of this 
land is below sea level. Eleven hundred miles of levees are 
needed to protect Delta land uses including 520,000 acres of 
farmland, a water conveyance pipeline that crosses the Delta to 
deliver water to East Bay, highways and roads, a railroad, 
natural gas and electric transmission facilities, and thousands 
of acres of habitat. Levees also protect water quality for 
Delta and export users.
    The purpose of providing authorizations for levee stability 
is to provide long-term protection for multiple Delta resources 
by maintaining and improving the integrity of the extensive 
Delta levees system. The Calfed ROD proposes investing a total 
of approximately $450 million in the Stage I implementation 
phase.
    It is intended the efforts of the levee stability program 
will be consistent with concurrent activities of ecosystem 
restoration, conveyance, and water quality. Certain levees will 
be built in ways that encourage habitat for aquatic and 
terrestrial species.
    The authorization provides assistance to federal agencies 
to help local reclamation districts reconstruct all Delta 
levees to a base level of protection. Nearly half of the 1,100 
miles of Delta levees do not meet this standard. More than 
400,000 people live in Delta towns and cities and giving 
protection to life and personal property, water quality, 
farming industries, and wildlife habitat are priorities for 
levee stability actions. The activities undertaken by the 
agencies will be closely coordinated with the Delta Levee 
Special Improvement Projects program so that the levee systems 
that are most unstable receive priority attention. The federal 
agencies will partner with local and State agencies to develop 
an Emergency Response Plan as well as a Delta Risk Management 
Strategy.
    Section 103(b)(7)(D). Program Management, Oversight, and 
Coordination. This subparagraph authorizes that no more than 
$25,000,000 may be expended by the federal agencies for program 
support and administrative responsibilities associated with 
implementing actions related to the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. 
Monitoring and accountability reporting of program progress, 
expenditures, and performance are required. To ensure Program 
balance and integration of Calfed Program components, 
multiagency oversight and coordination of all Program 
activities is required in this subparagraph. Agencies will have 
the responsibility to develop and provide meaningful annual 
budget crosscuts. The Committee believes that expenditures to 
date have not been balanced between Program components and have 
possibly threatened the integrity of the Calfed process of 
balanced implementation. The Committee expects federal funds to 
be appropriated in the most cost-effective manner. A 
comprehensive finance plan, including cost allocation, is to be 
developed which adheres to the beneficiary pays provisions of 
the ROD. Coordination of public involvement and outreach 
activities is a required activity.

Section 104. Management

    This section is designed to recognize that there is yet to 
be developed a long-term solution to California's water 
problems, particularly a plan to address the Bay-Delta, and the 
other areas of California that are affected by water management 
through the Bay-Delta. This section directs the federal 
agencies to coordinate with the State agencies on the 
development and implementation of Calfed Program components. 
The Committee wants to be very clear that the future management 
of the Calfed Program needs to be a multiparty structure 
originating in California with broad public, tribal, and local 
government involvement. The Committee expects that 
opportunities to partner with local interests, and undertaking 
joint activities with local public agencies, tribes, private 
water users and landowners will be pursued appropriately. The 
Committee expects that decisions made will be based on credible 
and objective scientific review and economic analysis. Use of 
the best available, independent peer-reviewed information is 
required.
    The authorities and discretionary powers of federal and 
state agencies granted to them by other laws will not be 
affected by this Act. This section emphasizes the need to 
coordinate multiple agency responsibilities, without reducing 
agency statutory authority and individual regulatory review. 
Title I of H.R. 2828 will build on our past experiences of 
water management planning to develop a multi-agency program 
that improves coordination of agency activities and emphasizes 
fiscal responsibility. The bill will bring focus to developing 
integrated, regionally- based water management plans as a 
necessary means to help resolve growing conflicts and foster 
cooperation between agencies, utilities, and public interests. 
This bill will put complete inter-agency coordination to the 
test and put to better use the financial resources agencies 
have available to them.
    This section focuses on the need for the Secretary of the 
Interior to provide quarterly status reports on progress and 
achievements in meeting the requirements and targets identified 
in the ROD. In particular, achieving the requirements and 
targets for water supply, water quality, and the environmental 
water account are specified.

Section 105. Reporting requirements

    This section provides for annual reporting. The report to 
Congress will describe the status of implementation of all 
Program components. The report will address the prior year's 
expenditures, accomplishments in achieving the objectives of 
improved water supply and water supply reliability, water 
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and rehabilitation and 
betterment of levee stability. Program goals, current 
schedules, and relevant financing agreements will be included. 
The Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of California 
are to conduct an annual review of progress and balanced 
implementation of Program components, and report revisions to 
schedules, funding commitments, and Program responsibilities as 
well as recommendations toachieve balanced progress in all 
Calfed Bay-Delta Program elements consistent with the ROD.
    A fundamental philosophy of the Calfed Program is that 
costs, to the extent possible, be paid by the beneficiaries of 
the Program actions. The Committee expects that all feasibility 
studies include identification of all project benefits 
consistent with the beneficiaries-pay provisions of the ROD. 
With respect to identification of project benefits and 
development of the cost allocation plan provided for in this 
section, the Committee intends that project beneficiaries be 
distinguished from project proponents or participants, and that 
costs be allocated in a way that relates to benefits. The 
Committee believes that every Calfed purpose is a potential 
``beneficiary'' of every Calfed Program storage or water supply 
improvement and these investments should be evaluated in this 
light.

Section 106. Crosscut budget

    This section focuses on the need for the Calfed Program to 
improve coordination with the participating State and federal 
agencies. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
will include in the Administration's annual budget request a 
meaningful annual interagency budget crosscut that displays the 
expenditures since year 2000, details accounting of all funds 
received and obligated by federal and State agencies, and 
proposes funding levels for carrying out the upcoming year's 
activities for implementing components of the Calfed Program. 
The budget will clearly indicate interagency and intra-agency 
funding transfers for the upcoming year under both existing 
authorities and under new authorities granted by this 
legislation.
    The Committee believes that there needs to be an adjustment 
to return the federal funding mechanism to Congress. Calfed 
agencies shall ensure that all relevant federal programs 
authorized under this Act and other pre-existing authorities 
coordinate goal setting, funding, and implementation so as to 
ensure the most efficient and effective expenditures of federal 
funds and resources for Calfed-related activities. The 
Committee expects the adoption of performance measures that 
provide a real basis for adaptive management rather than 
continual policy drifting with no goals or financial 
accountability. The Committee believes that expenditures to 
date have not been balanced and have possibly threatened the 
integrity of the Calfed process of balanced implementation of 
all Program components.

Section 107. Federal share of costs

    The federal share of the cost for implementing the Calfed 
Program for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 shall not exceed 
33.3 percent.
    Under the integrated water management objectives on which 
the Calfed Program is based, new and expanded storage features 
and water supply improvements must be evaluated for their 
ability to improve water supply and management for all Calfed 
purposes, including flows for fishery migration and 
environmental water quality. Calfed is intended to provide a 
multi-dimensional approach and solution to water issues. The 
activities suggested as part of the solution are meant to be 
enacted together, with each supporting the others. There are 
significant public and environmental benefits associated with 
Calfed operational and infrastructure oriented actions and 
programs.
    By strictly applying a ``traditional water yield 
evaluation,'' a proposed action's costs and benefits are 
allocated among a pre-identified group of clearly defined 
consumptive users. Since the Calfed Program is a combination of 
multi-purpose projects meant to provide broad solutions, the 
Committee believes the application of the ``traditional 
approach'' is not appropriate and does not meet the intent of 
the ``beneficiary-pays'' provisions in the ROD. The Committee 
believes that the premise of identification of project 
beneficiaries is to be based on consistent application of 
criteria, including cost allocation that has been arrived at 
through the Programmatic EIS/EIR and as described in the ROD. 
The Committee expects the Secretary of the Interior to direct 
the cost allocation analysis beyond the mere physical location 
of any action or program, and to instead focus on the intended 
or resulting operational or water resource allocation benefits 
of that action. In the end a comprehensive and integrated list 
of actions and projects will be undertaken together in order 
for any of the expected results and improvements to occur.

Section 108. Use of existing authorities and funds

    Federal agencies shall utilize to the maximum extent 
possible authorities granted to them under existing law for the 
purpose of carrying out the purposes of this Act. The Committee 
has heard in testimony that federal agencies have and are 
continuing to implement actions and projects that meet the 
purposes of the Calfed Program. Not later than 60 days after 
enactment of this Act and each year thereafter, the Secretary 
of the Interior is required to submit a Congressional report 
which identifies existing authorities and list funds which were 
authorized in the previous year for the authorities listed, and 
in conjunction with identification of projects carried out with 
the funding obligated and expended for each of the projects 
implemented.

Section 109. Compliance with State and Federal law

    This section ensures that the authorization does not 
inadvertently adversely affect the existing California legal 
structure, preempts or modifies interstate compacts governing 
water quality or disposal, or confers any right to a non-
federal entity the ability to exercise federal rights to 
waters.

Section 110. Authorization of appropriation

    This section authorizes a total $389 million in 
appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior and the heads 
of the federal agencies for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 to 
carry out the activities in Section 103, Activities to be 
Undertaken under New and Expanded Authorizations.

 TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED REGULATORY COORDINATION OFFICES


Section 201. Establishment of offices

    A fundamental challenge to implementing a solution to 
current and future water conflicts is the multiple regulatory 
and agency coverage of critical issues. The unintended 
adverseconsequences of uncoordinated activities adds costs and time to 
implementing water management projects. The intent of this section is 
to implement a process and concept similar to the recently passed 
legislation that established a permitting coordination office within 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of streamlining the 
permitting procedures for rehabilitation and betterment of the Hetch 
Hetchy system.
    The Committee has included Title II to ensure that overall 
project benefits are a factor in considering the project during 
the permitting review process. The ability to provide a central 
point of contact that can facilitate a project's regulatory 
permitting needs will enable efficient and effective permitting 
to occur in a timely manner. This section directs the 
development of a streamlining process for the issuance of 
permits and approvals required under State and federal law and 
regulatory programs to minimize the burden of submission 
requirements. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 
establish within the State of California a regulatory 
streamlining and interagency coordination office for the 
purposes of implementing such projects. The Committee believes 
this is a way redundant and inconsistent regulatory 
requirements could be dealt with and informed decisions could 
be made on how to proceed or not proceed. This shall not affect 
the integrity of the review process.
    The authorities and discretionary powers of federal and 
state agencies granted to them by other laws will not be 
affected by this Act. This section recognizes the need to 
coordinate multiple agency responsibilities, without reducing 
agency statutory authority and individual regulatory review. 
The Committee believes that a regulatory coordination office 
can also benefit Bureau of Reclamation projects that have been 
authorized by other Congressional legislation, such as rural 
water projects. As such, the legislation expands the scope and 
purpose of regulatory streamlining and coordination to include 
all Reclamation projects. The Secretary of the Interior may at 
the request of the Governor of any Reclamation State establish 
such offices for the use of State and federal agencies, and 
located within such States. It is not the intent of this 
legislation to establish such offices for the purposes of 
coordinating permitting processes of other authorized federal 
projects under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies.

Section 202. Acceptance and expenditure of contributions

    The Secretary of the Interior may accept and expend funds 
contributed by non-federal public entities to offset the 
federal costs of processing such permit applications and 
preparation of environmental documentation. The Secretary shall 
allocate funds received for the purposes outlined in this 
section among the federal agencies with responsibility for 
processing permit applications and preparing environmental 
documentation. The Secretary and the heads of the federal 
agencies shall ensure that acceptance of funds will not affect 
impartial decision making with respect to approving and issuing 
permits of preparing environmental documents, or affect the 
regulatory and statutory authorities of the agencies involved.
    The Committee expects that those entities using the 
centralized regulatory office will pay for the services 
rendered. Therefore, there is no request for authorization of 
federal funds for this Title.

                 TITLE III--RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM


Section 301. Rural Water Supply Program

    The Committee is very much aware that providing safe and 
dependable drinking water supplies is a concern in water-short 
rural areas and in rural areas where water quality is impaired. 
The Department of the Interior has shown there is a need for 
providing drinking water supplies in the Reclamation States. 
This program does not already exist in Interior. The Bureau of 
Reclamation has received Congressional authorization for the 
construction of rural water projects, but the authorizations 
have essentially gone unfunded.
    This Title requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing 
rural water systems. The development of study and 
implementation of rural water domestic systems is to be 
completed in coordination and cooperation with other federal 
agencies with rural water programs.
    The Committee expects that selection criteria will be 
developed as part of this study for consistently determining 
the eligibility of proposed projects for participation in a 
rural water program. For the projects which are currently being 
implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Administration's 
Program Assessment Rating Tool criticized the agency for a lack 
of consistent criteria. It is the intent of this section that 
criteria will be developed that satisfies the recommendations 
of the program assessment.
    No federal funding level is authorized in this section.

                   TITLE IV--SALTON SEA STUDY PROGRAM


Section 401. Salton Sea Study Program

    The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to conduct a 
study to determine the feasibility of reclaiming the Salton Sea 
in accordance to the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998.
    The intent of this section is to identify actions which the 
Secretary could feasibly undertake and implement. Such actions 
will be in coordination with and in conjunction with the State 
of California. The State of California is currently conducting 
a feasibility study to investigate alternatives to rehabilitate 
the Salton Sea ecosystem.
    Findings and recommendations from the State-led study will 
not be available until 2006. However, it is the purpose of this 
section to cooperate with the State of California and identify 
components of the reclamation plan which have a federal 
interest and could be cost-effectively completed by the 
Secretary. The Secretary shall consider, among other things, 
appraisal investigations, project-specific feasibility studies, 
and environmental reporting. A report is due to Congress within 
one year from the date of enactment of this Title.
    No federal funding level is authorized for the purposes 
identified in this section.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to enhance and improve water supply, 
water yield, and water reliability while improving water 
quality and protecting the environment.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, June 1, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman, The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2828, the 
California Water Security and Environmental Enhancement Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie 
Middleton.
            Sincerely,
                                         Elizabeth Robinson
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2828--Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act

    Summary: Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, 
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2828 would cost $427 
million over the 2005-2009 period and $65 million after 2009. 
Those amounts do not include the cost of constructing four new 
water storage projects that would be authorized by this bill 
because construction would begin after 2009. CBO estimates that 
the federal share of those additional construction costs would 
range from $200 million to $400 million over the 2010-2020 
period.
    Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or 
revenues. H.R. 2828 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The funds authorized by this bill would benefit 
the state of California and local governments in that state. 
Any spending by those governments to participate in the water 
projects would be voluntary.
    H.R. 2828 would authorize multiple federal agencies to 
participate in the implementation of the Calfed Bay-Delta 
Program as outlined in the August 28, 2000, Record of Decision 
for the Calfed Bay-Delta Program Programatic Environmental 
Impact Statement and Report. This bill would authorize the 
appropriation of $389 million over the 2005-2008 period 
specifically for the proposed environmental water account, 
stabilizing levees, evaluating and constructing water 
conveyance structures, and coordinating the federal portion of 
the Calfed program. In addition, H.R. 2828 would authorize 
federal agencies to participate in the design and construction 
of four water storage projects if the Congress does not 
disapprove the feasibility studies for those projects.
    In addition, H.R. 2828 would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish offices to coordinate compliance with 
federal regulations in the 17 western states where the Bureau 
of Reclamation operates. The bill also would authorize the 
Secretary to conduct two feasibility studies on constructing 
rural water systems and reclaiming the Salton Sea in 
California.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2828 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Calfed Bay-Delta Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority......................................        0        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       17       23       20        2        0        0
Proposed Changes:
    New Calfed Projects:
        Authorization Level...............................        0       98       98       98       95        0
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0       44       69       84      101       53
    Water Storage Projects:
        Estimated Authorization Level.....................        0        0        0        5       35       35
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        0        0        3       24       30
    Regulatory Coordination Offices:
        Estimated Authorization Level.....................        0        1        1        1        1        1
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        1        1        1        1        1
    Feasibility Studies:
        Estimated Authorization Level.....................        0       15        0        0        0        0
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0        9        4        2        0        0
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization Level.....................        0      114       99      104      131       36
        Estimated Outlays.................................        0       54       74       89      126       84
Calfed Bay-Delta Spending Under H.R. 2828:
    Estimated Authorization Level.........................        0      114       99      104      131       36
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       17       77       94       91      126       84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
2828 will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2004 and that 
the necessary amounts will be appropriated in each year 
starting in 2005. Estimates of outlays are based on historical 
spending patterns of similar programs and information from the 
Bureau of Reclamation.

Title I--California Water Security and Environmental Enhancement Act

    Title I would authorize the appropriation of $389 million 
over the 2005-2008 period specifically for the proposed 
environmental water account ($90 million), stabilizing levees 
($90 million), evaluating and constructing water conveyance 
structures ($184 million), and coordinating the federal portion 
of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program ($25 million). H.R. 2828 would 
authorize the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and 
Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army 
Corps of Engineers to participate in these projects. Under this 
bill, the federal share of the cost of these projects would be 
limited to 33.3 percent of the total cost for the 2005-2008 
period as outlined in the Record of Decision. Because this bill 
would limit the federal cost share, CBO expects that spending 
on these projects will be slower than historical federal 
spending on similar projects. CBO estimates that implementing 
the projects outlined in this bill would cost $350 million over 
the 2005-2009 period and $39 million after that period.
    In addition, this title would authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to participate in the design and construction of 
four water storage projects if the Congress does not disapprove 
the feasibility studies for those projects. Under current law, 
federal agencies are allowed to participate in the feasibility 
studies for increasing the water storage capacity at Shasta 
Lake, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, the Sites Reservoir, and the 
Upper San Joaquin River. Under H.R. 2828, the bureau and other 
federal agencies would be authorized to participate in the 
design and construction of those four storage projects as well, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary funds.
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that some of the pre-
construction engineering and design costs for these storage 
projects would occur over the 2005-2009 period. CBO estimates 
that the design phase of the Shasta enlargement project would 
begin in fiscal year 2007, and the design of the other three 
projects would begin in fiscal year 2008. CBO expects that the 
design phase would last two to three years. Based on 
information from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO estimates that 
the total design costs for these four projects would cost about 
$750 million. The federal share of project funding over the 
first three years of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program has been 
about 10 percent. For this estimate, CBO assumes thatthe 
federal share of design and construction costs would be $75 million (10 
percent of $750 million), though it could be higher or lower depending 
on the ultimate cost allocation that is negotiated between California 
and federal agencies. CBO estimates that implementing the design phase 
of these projects would cost 457 million over the 2005-2009 period.
    In addition, the bureau estimates that the total 
construction costs for these storage projects could range from 
$2.1 billion to $3.9 billion. Assuming a 10 percent federal 
cost share, CBO estimates that the federal share of these costs 
could range from about $200 million to $400 million, though 
such costs would depend on the ultimate cost allocation 
negotiated between California and federal agencies. CBO expects 
that construction would take place after 2010.

Title II--Establishment of Centralized Regulatory Coordination Offices

    Title II would require the Secretary of the Interior to 
establish a regulatory coordination office in Sacramento, 
California, for use by all federal and state agencies that 
issue permits and prepare environmental assessments. In 
addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary to establish 
an office in any of the other 16 states covered by the Bureau 
of Reclamation if requested to do so by the governor of that 
state.
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that an additional full-time 
equivalent employee will be hired for the existing Sacramento, 
California, regional office to improve regulatory coordination 
in the state. In addition, CBO assumes that the other 13 states 
that house existing bureau offices would also hire an 
additional full-time equivalent employee for the same purpose. 
CBO estimates that implementing this title would cost about $1 
million annually.

Titles III and IV--Feasibility Studies

    Titles III and IV would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct two feasibility studies. Under title III, 
the Secretary would conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of constructing rural water systems. Based on 
information from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO estimates that 
conducting this study would cost about $200,000 in 2005. Under 
title IV, the Secretary would conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of reclaiming the Salton Sea in California. 
Reclaiming the Salton Sea would be a complex undertaking from 
an engineering standpoint and would have wide ranging 
biological consequences according to the bureau. Based on 
information from the bureau, CBO estimates the it would cost 
about $15 million over the 2005-2009 period to conduct this 
study.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2828 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impost no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. The funds authorized by this bill would 
benefit the state of California and local governments in that 
state. Any spending by those governments to participate in the 
CALFED program would be voluntary. The bill would limit the 
federal share of CALFED projects to one-third of the total 
cost.
    Previous CBO estimate: On May 5, CBO transmitted a cost 
estimate for S. 1097, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act, 
as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources on April 28, 2004. The differences in the CBO 
cost estimates for the two bills stem from different levels of 
authorized funding.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller; and Impact on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                        COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                     Washington, DC, June 17, 2004.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: As you are aware, Chairman Ken Calvert 
of the Subcommittee on Water and Power has been working 
tirelessly to pull all the disparate parties together to 
produce a Calfed Bay-Delta program bill to provide water 
security and enhancement for the State of California. This has 
been a long road, but it appears that Chairman Calvert is very 
close to success. It also appears that the Leadership may be 
able to schedule H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability and 
Environmental Improvement Act, for Floor consideration during 
the week of June 21, 2004. Given the limited number of 
legislative days left in the House schedule this Congress and 
the domination of the appropriations process at the end of the 
session, we are anxious to take advantage of this opportunity.
    I need your assistance to help schedule the bill. The 
Committee on Resources ordered H.R. 2828 favorable reported on 
May 5, 2004, and after much effort, we finally have the bill 
report ready to file this week. While Resources is the primary 
committee of jurisdiction, the bill was also referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure because of the 
roles that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Environmental Protection Agency play in the Calfed effort. 
Since reporting the bill, we have worked closely with your 
staff on resolving some issues, and I pledge that both I and 
Chairman Calvert will continue to work with you to develop any 
changes that might be needed in the reported text. However, I 
ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to be discharged from further consideration of 
the bill when we file the bill report. This will allow the 
Resources Committee-reported text to be available to the 
Members and will give us a chance of making the schedule for 
next week.
    By allowing the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to be discharged, the Committee would not be 
waiving its claim over the provisions of the bill in your 
jurisdiction, nor would this action serve as precedent for 
other similar measures. In addition, in the event that a 
conference is convened on H.R. 2828 or a similar Senate bill, I 
would support your request to have your committee represented 
on the conference for those matters in your jurisdiction. 
Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and your 
response in the bill report accompanying H.R. 2828.
    Thank you for your cooperation and that of Susan Bodine of 
your staff. It has been a pleasure to work with you all during 
my tenure as Chairman of the Committee on Resources.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, June 17, 2004.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental 
Improvement Act.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2828 and 
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. I 
appreciate your willingness to work with me to address the 
Transportation Committee's concerns. Based on your assurance 
that you will offer a Floor amendment worked out by staff of 
our two Committees, I will agree to have the Transportation 
Committee discharged from consideration of the bill. I would 
appreciate it if you would include a copy of this letter and of 
your response in the Committee Report on the bill.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Nearly ten years after the signing of the Bay-Delta Accord, 
the promise of peace in California's water wars remains largely 
unfulfilled. Enactment of Federal legislation to authorize 
implementation of the 2000 Record of Decision, and continued 
Federal agency participation in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 
is generally agreed to be a desirable, albeit elusive, goal.
    We fully support the Committee's desire to provide a 
legislative framework for the continuation of the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program in California. Many significant changes have been 
made to this bill since its introduction, and a number of 
contentious issues have been resolved. In addition, important 
language to encourage water recycling and groundwater 
remediation was added during Committee consideration of the 
bill. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the bill's 
sponsors to accommodate these concerns.
    Unfortunately, Title I of H.R. 2828 as reported by the 
Committee on Resources will not fairly implement the CALFED 
Bay-Delta Program, and, in its current form, will instead cause 
years of delay and litigation. We are concerned that these 
delays will frustrate agencies and stakeholders alike, and will 
discourage Congress from funding the program. We sincerely hope 
the sponsors of this legislation will not bring this 
legislation to the House Floor in its present form. We 
encourage the sponsors of H.R. 2828 to work with the Minority 
and CALFED stakeholders to resolve several important issues 
before this legislation is brought to the Floor.

                        INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

    Title I of H.R. 2828, The California Water Security and 
Environmental Enhancement Act, is intended primarily to 
reauthorize the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative 
effort involving eighteen State and Federal agencies and 
representatives of California's urban, agricultural, and 
environmental communities. The goals of the program generally 
are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 
reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San 
Joaquin River Delta, the principal hub of California's water 
distribution system. Congressional authorization for part of 
this program, originally granted by the 1996 California Bay-
Delta Environmental Enhancement Act, expired over four years 
ago.
    The 1996 Act authorized a total of $430 million in Federal 
funds over three years (FY 1998 to FY 2000) for ecosystem 
restoration activities in the Bay-Delta region. From FY 1998 to 
FY 2000 a total of $190 million was provided in appropriations 
administered by the Bureau of Reclamation and other 
participating Federal agencies, based on plans developed by 
CALFED. Other funds in support of CALFED activities and 
projects have been made available by the California legislature 
and State bond issues.
    Because the Congress has not enacted authorizing 
legislation, Federal spending for the Bay-Delta program in 
recent years has been limited to activities that can be 
undertaken within existing statutory authorities.
    The lead CALFED agencies released the Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and 
Preferred Alternative on July 21, 2000. A Record of Decision 
(ROD) was signed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on August 
28, 2000. The ROD formally approved a long-term plan for 
restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem and improving water 
management.

Title I. California Water Security and Environmental Enhancement Act

    Title I of H.R. 2828 as reported by the Committee on 
Resources is not a fair and balanced implementation of the 
Record of Decision. This Title includes several highly 
controversial provisions that go well beyond the agreements 
reflected in the ROD. A number of significant commitments made 
in the ROD are conspicuously missing from this legislation, and 
some fundamental CALFED and longstanding Reclamation policies 
would be reversed if Title I of H.R. 2828 is enacted in its 
present form.
    All parties would prefer to see some aspect of the ROD 
changed. Efforts to alter its balanced program, or to steer it 
in ways that clearly and unfairly favor certain participants in 
the CALFED process at the expense of others, will discredit 
CALFED and jeopardize the effectiveness of this legislation.
    1. Sec. 103(b)(5)(A) would allow the Secretary of the 
Interior to undertake major construction projects, including 
mainstem dams, without specific approval by Congress. This new 
procedure is without precedent and seriously erodes the 
prerogatives of the Congress. It is hard to imagine that 
Congress would agree to strip itself of the authority--well 
established for over a century--to authorize billion-dollar dam 
projects. If similar procedures were proposed, for example, to 
allow the Secretary of the Interior to designate new National 
Parks without Congressional approval, the outcry would be 
deafening, and rightly so.
    2. Sec. 103(b)(5)(F), Ecosystem Restoration, is of equal 
concern. By piling on new procedural steps and inventing new 
requirements for preparing countless new plans, reports, 
analyses, outlines, certifications, descriptions, 
determinations, identifications, conditions, and 
considerations, this section will frustrate, not facilitate, 
the construction of ecosystem restoration projects. The 
absurdity of the bureaucratic process created by these new 
requirements is apparent; their execution will delight the 
lawyers. This section promises decades of litigation and no 
restoration. This section will impose de facto new procedures 
on the Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. If the authors of Title I of H.R. 2828 wish to 
avoid solving water problems in California, they will succeed 
if these draconian new provisions are enacted into law.
    3. Sec. 103(b)(5)(B)(iv)(II) singles out wildlife refuges 
as significant sources of water pollution and imposes new 
requirements for ``mandatory source controls'' and ``best 
drainage management practices.'' While the Secretary of the 
Interior may have authority to regulate water discharges from 
National Wildlife Refuge lands owned by the federal government, 
it is questionable that this authority extends to privately-
owned wetlands and water districts.
    A January, 2002 report of the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board \1\ acknowledges that ``Discharges from managed 
wetlands also contribute tot he LSJR [Lower San Joaquin 
River's] salt and boron load.'' Specifically, the report 
states, ``Wetland discharges account for at least nine percent 
of the mean annual LSJR salt load''. However, this same report 
also states (page 47), ``agricultural discharges contribute 
most of the salt'' to the Lower San Joaquin River, accounting 
for 43 percent of the total salt load of the Lower San Joaquin 
River (Table 3-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, 
2002. Total Maximum Daily Load For Salinity and Boron in the Lower San 
Joaquin River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A significant cause of the salt loading in the Lower San 
Joaquin River is the relatively poor quality of imported 
Central Valley Project (CVP) water supplies. According to the 
Regional Board's report (page 79), ``almost half of the LSJR's 
total annual salt load is imported to the LSJR watershed via 
the CVP.'' As this poor quality water is delivered by the CVP 
and put to use on farms and managed wetlands, it is essentially 
recirculated back into the Lower San Joaquin River, further 
exacerbating the salt balance problems in the area.
    Salt loads and other water quality problems in Delta 
receiving waters are complex and originate form many different 
sources, including groundwater, irrigated agriculture, and 
managed wetlands. These matters are properly within the 
jurisdiction of the State of California (California 
Environmental Protection Agency, Central Valley Regional Water 
Quality Control Board). Using CALFED legislation to impose new 
water quality regulatory requirements on one category of CVP 
water users is totally without scientific basis and lies far 
beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
    We encourage the sponsors of H.R. 2828 to work with local 
stakeholders, property owners, and the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board staff to revise or strike the language of Sec. 
103(b)(5)(B)(iv)(II) before the bill is brought to the House 
Floor. As currently drafted, this language represents a 
dangerous regulatory assault on the rights of private property 
owners of wildlife refuge lands.
    4. Sec. 103(b)(5)(J), Diversification of Water Supplies. We 
urge the sponsors of H.R. 2828 to revise this language to 
recognize the importance of acquiring Level 4 water supplies 
for refuges. The language of S. 1097, as amended (Sec. 
3(b)(3)(J)), is suggested as a very reasonable solution:
                  (J) Diversification of water supplies.--
                Activities under thissubparagraph consist of 
actions to--
                          (i) diversify sources of level 2 
                        refuge supplies and modes of delivery 
                        to refuges; and
                          (ii) acquire additional water for 
                        level 4 refuge supplies.
    We understand that some parties maybe concerned that 
acquisition of Level 4 refuge water supplies would adversely 
impact their access to Central Valley Project supplies. We note 
that, in addition to requiring deliveries of Level 4 water to 
refuges, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (P.L. 102-
575) specifically provides in Sec. 3406(d)(2) that moving to 
Level 4 deliveries shall be ``through voluntary measures which 
include water conservation, conjunctive use, purchase, lease, 
donations, or similar activities, or a combination of such 
activities which do not require involuntary reallocations of 
project yield.''
    5. Sec. 103(b)(7)(B), Environmental Water Account. This 
provision requires Federal taxpayers to pay all the costs of 
the Environmental Water Account, with no contribution from the 
State of California, water users, or anybody else. In addition, 
this provision changes the definition and purpose of the 
Environmental Water Account by including water quality. Both 
provisions are in direct conflict with the Record of Decision. 
Again, the simple authorization language from S. 1097, as 
amended (Sec. 3(b)(5)(B)), would resolve this controversy:
                  (B) Environmental water account.--Of the 
                amounts authorized to be appropriated under 
                section 8, not more than $90,000,000 may be 
                expended for implementation of the 
                Environmental Water Account.

                                   Nick J. Rahall.
                                   George Miller.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.
                                   Tom Udall.