```

[House Report 106-1018]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                           Rept. 106-1018
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================

 
                      CALFED EXTENSION ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

                October 30, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5130]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 5130) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide cost sharing for the CALFED water enhancement programs 
in California, 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:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``CALFED Extension Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

  The purpose of this Act is to authorize interim funding for the 
Secretary of the Interior to continue the implementation of ecosystem 
protection programs, and development of water supply enhancement 
projects critically needed to achieve increased yield and environmental 
benefits as well as improved water system reliability, water quality, 
water use efficiency, watershed management, water transfers, and levee 
protection for California. This authorization will ensure that the 
CALFED Program emphasizes well-grounded, sound science for decisions 
and actions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this Act:
          (1) The term ``Bay-Delta solution area'' means the Bay-Delta 
        watershed, the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
        Estuary, and the areas in which diverted/exported water is 
        used.
          (2) The term ``Bay-Delta watershed'' means the waters 
        entering and supplied by the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley 
        watershed and the lands within the watershed.
          (3) The term ``CALFED Agencies'' means both the Federal 
        Agencies and the State Agencies.
          (4) The term ``Congressional Committees'' means the Senate 
        Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Senate 
        Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
        the House Resources Committee, and the House Appropriations 
        Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
          (5) The term ``Environmental Water Account'' means the CALFED 
        Agencies sponsored water account established to provide water 
        for the protection and recovery of fish beyond water available 
        through existing regulatory actions, at no uncompensated water 
        cost to the water users, in the Bay-Delta watershed and export 
        areas.
          (6) The term ``Federal Agencies'' means the Federal Agencies 
        as identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Record of Decision.
          (7) The term ``Federal ESA Regulatory Agencies'' means the 
        United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 
        Fisheries Service.
          (8) The term ``Record of Decision'' means the Federal record 
        of decision issued August 28, 2000, pursuant to the National 
        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the CALFED Bay-Delta 
        Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
          (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
        Interior.
          (10) The term ``State Agencies'' means the State agencies as 
        identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision.
          (11) The term ``yield'' means a quantity of water supply, 
        either derived from recycling existing sources, stored in a 
        reservoir, or by other means that is reliably available in 
        critically dry years. Conservation, land retirement, transfers, 
        groundwater, increased delta pumping and other water management 
        tools that generate additional or new water supplies shall be 
        considered in characterizing yield.

SEC. 4. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.

  (a) In General.--The Federal Agencies, acting through the CALFED 
Program, shall develop a balanced and timely program designed to 
achieve increased yield and environmental benefits as well as improved 
water system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, 
watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection. In meeting 
the need for balance, funding for water supply enhancements and 
environmental benefits shall proceed concomitantly so that adequate 
progress is made in each area.
  (b) Water System Improvements.--The Federal Agencies are directed to 
ensure that Federal participation in the CALFED Program results in 
continuous, measurable, and significant benefits to achieve increased 
yield and environmental benefits as well as improved water system 
reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, watershed management, 
water transfers, and levee protection for agricultural and urban uses 
throughout the Bay-Delta solution area. In developing such water supply 
benefits, funding for water storage development and conveyance 
facilities located in the Central Valley and Bay-Delta, will occur 
together. However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to implicitly 
or explicitly authorize the Hood Diversion or any Peripheral Canal 
substitute. In developing water supply options the Federal Agencies 
shall consider all potential storage alternatives and utilize a cost/
benefit analysis in conjunction with environmental criteria to ensure 
that proposals are selected which address environmental issues and are 
economically viable.
  (c) Water Deliveries.--In consultation with interested parties, the 
Secretary is directed to develop water supply rule curves that can be 
used to describe increased water delivery in varying water years. To 
the extent that the 2001 water year is a normal water year, the 
Secretary is directed to deliver the water supply improvements targeted 
in the CALFED Framework for Action, dated June 9, 2000, for 
agricultural and urban uses. If the 2001 water year is not a normal 
water year, the Central Valley Project shall be operated pursuant to 
the water supply rule curves identified above, to ensure that the water 
supply of south-of-the-Delta Central Valley Project agricultural 
contractors is increased in a manner comparable with the targeted 
normal-year supply improvements. The increased supply for south-of-the-
Delta Central Valley Project agricultural contractors shall be 
accomplished without affecting deliveries to other water users. For 
purposes of this section, ``normal-year'' shall mean a water year in 
which precipitation, runoff, and storage, projected on April 1 using a 
50-percent exceedance, are within 5 percent of the long-term average.
  (d) Water Supply Studies.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau 
of Reclamation, is authorized and directed to conduct studies of 
available water supplies and existing demand within the respective 
units of the Central Valley Project.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Long-Term Solution.--Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to 
diminish the Federal interest in, and responsibility for, working with 
the State of California through the CALFED Program in developing, 
funding, and implementing a balanced, long-term solution to achieve 
increased yield and environmental benefits as well as improved water 
system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, watershed 
management, water transfers, and levee protection in the Bay-Delta 
solution area. The long-term solution shall be provided by 
congressional action authorized subsequent to this Act, and shall be 
based on the equitable allocation of program costs among beneficiary 
groups. The authorization herein provided for the Federal Agencies 
shall expire January 1, 2002.
  (b) CALFED Governance.--It is the intent of Congress that the Federal 
Government and the State of California will work together to develop a 
joint structure for managing CALFED operations. To achieve that goal, 
the Federal Agencies are directed to participate with the State 
Agencies to develop a proposed structure that will be authorized by 
both Congress and the California legislature prior to becoming 
effective. In developing such a proposal, the CALFED Agencies are 
directed to make such a recommendation to Congress and the California 
Legislature by May 31, 2001. The Federal Agencies are directed to take 
steps that will encourage broad public, tribal, and local government 
involvement in developing the CALFED governance proposal. Whenever 
feasible, meetings of multiple CALFED Agencies to develop program goals 
or determine operational criteria shall be open to the public.

SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL WATER MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Management of Environmental Water Account.--The Federal Agencies 
are directed to manage the Environmental Water Account so that actions 
taken to avoid jeopardy to ESA listed species, enhance species 
recovery, and protect fish by reducing incidental take related to 
Central Valley Project, State Water Project, or other water user 
operations, are accomplished with no annual net loss of water delivered 
by those projects, as compared to the water that would otherwise be 
delivered. In their operation of the Environmental Water Account, the 
Federal Agencies are directed to minimize water quality impacts 
associated with Environmental Water Account operations.
  (b) Avoiding Jeopardy to Species.--If, by December 31, 2000, the 
Environmental Water Account water purchase targets have not been met, 
the Federal Agencies are directed to continue their efforts to meet the 
water purchase targets as well as cooperate with the State Agencies to 
operate the Environmental Water Account to avoid jeopardy to listed 
species and to avoid reductions in Central Valley Project, State Water 
Project, or other water user deliveries due to the application of take 
limits. The CALFED Agencies shall make use of the variable 
Environmental Water Account assets and all amounts of purchased water 
actually acquired.
  (c) Water Delivery Reductions.--On or before January 30, 2001, the 
Federal ESA Regulatory Agencies, in cooperation with all CALFED 
Agencies, shall determine if there is likely to be jeopardy to listed 
species from the lack of water in the Environmental Water Account. Only 
after--
          (1) full utilization of the available Environmental Water 
        Account assets;
          (2) the use of other water, measures, and resources available 
        to the CALFED Agencies, that would not reduce deliveries to 
        water users; and
          (3) a determination by the Federal ESA Regulatory Agencies 
        that jeopardy is likely;
shall water deliveries be reduced. In that event, the reductions shall 
be the minimum required to avoid jeopardy. In carrying out their duties 
under this subsection the Federal Agencies shall consider all available 
information, seek and consider the views of the ``independent science 
panel'' (as defined in the Record of Decision), and prepare a written 
response to the views of the panel.
  (d) Tier 3 Water.--The Federal Agencies shall also follow the 
procedures set forth in subsection (c) if it is determined that ``Tier 
3'' water (as defined in the Record of Decision) is not available or 
may be insufficient to avoid jeopardy to existing or future listed 
species under the Federal or California endangered species Acts.

SEC. 7. LAND ACQUISITION.

  Prior to acquiring land as part of the CALFED Program, the CALFED 
Agencies shall first determine that Federal or State owned land is not 
available to achieve identified CALFED Program objectives. If private 
lands are proposed for acquisition, the Federal Agencies shall ensure 
that all payments in lieu of taxes on existing Federal lands within the 
county where the land is to be acquired are currently paid. In 
determining whether to acquire additional lands for the CALFED Program, 
the CALFED Agencies shall consider the cumulative impact on the local 
government and communities of transferring the property into government 
ownership and mitigate such impacts. The Federal Agencies shall, no 
later than January 1, 2001, develop an assurances program in 
cooperation with the State Agencies. Under this program, the CALFED 
Agencies shall partner with landowners and local agencies to develop 
cooperating landowner commitments that will meet co-equal objectives to 
achieve local economic and social goals and to implement the ecosystem 
restoration goals in the Record of Decision.

SEC. 8. LIST OF PROPOSED FEDERAL EXPENDITURES.

  For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
Congressional Committees, by no later than the submission of the budget 
for the fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 
a report for the proposed projects to be carried out with the Federal 
portion of the funds to be appropriated pursuant to this Act for the 
upcoming fiscal year. The report shall separately specify all projects 
supported by Federal funding. For such projects the Secretary shall 
provide a summary of the recommendations provided by the Bay-Delta 
Advisory Committee, the Ecosystem Roundtable, and other members of the 
public commenting on the projects. No project shall proceed without the 
concurrence of the Congressional Committees.

SEC. 9. ANNUAL REPORTS.

  (a) State Reports.--On January 1, 2001, the Governor of California 
shall account for all moneys received by the State of California from 
the Federal fiscal year 2000 appropriations in a written report to the 
Secretary. The report shall include a description of all projects and 
activities receiving funds under this Act, as well as any unexpended 
funds.
  (b) Report to Congress.--On February 1, 2001, the Secretary shall 
provide to the Congressional Committees a report regarding CALFED 
Program expenditures and accomplishments in achieving increased yield 
and environmental benefits as well as improved water system 
reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, watershed management, 
water transfers, and levee protection.

SEC. 10. PROGRAM FUNDING.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For fiscal year 2001 there is 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $60,000,000. Funds 
appropriated pursuant to this Act may remain available until expended.
  (b) Treatment of Funds.--Funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant 
to this Act to those Federal Agencies that are currently or 
subsequently become participants in the CALFED Program shall be in 
addition to the baseline funding levels established for currently 
authorized projects and programs under the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) and other currently 
authorized Federal programs for the purposes of Bay-Delta ecosystem 
protection and restoration and water system improvement.

SEC. 11. PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES.

  (a) Coordination.--To the extent not otherwise authorized, those 
agencies and departments that are currently or subsequently become 
participants in the CALFED Program are hereby authorized to undertake 
the activities and programs for which Federal cost sharing is provided 
by this Act. CALFED Agencies shall ensure that all relevant Federal 
programs authorized under this Act and other preexisting authorities 
coordinate goalsetting, funding, and implementation so as to ensure the 
most efficient and effective expenditure of Federal funds and resources 
for CALFED related activities. The United States shall continue 
coordinated consultations and negotiations with the State of California 
pursuant to the cost sharing agreement required by section 78684.10 of 
California Senate Bill 900, Chapter 135, Statutes of 1996, signed by 
the Governor of California on July 11, 1996. In addition, the Federal 
Agencies shall cooperate and undertake joint activities with local 
public agencies, tribes, private water users, and landowners pursuant 
to the CALFED Program. Such activities shall include, but not be 
limited to, planning, design, technical assistance, construction for 
ecosystem restoration programs and projects, and the development of a 
peer review science program.
  (b) Budget Crosscut.--By November 1, 2000, the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget (in this section referred to as ``OMB'') is 
directed to submit to the Congressional Committees an interagency 
budget crosscut report that displays the proposed Federal spending for 
fiscal year 2001 on ecosystem restoration and other purposes in the 
Bay-Delta region and identifies all expenditures within the State and 
Federal Governments used to achieve the objectives identified within 
the CALFED Program. The report shall be substantially in the form 
transmitted by the Executive Director of CALFED on September 16, 1999, 
to the Chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. 
OMB shall produce an update of the September 16, 1999, report by no 
later than January 1, 2001, to display the actual expenditures that 
were made for fiscal year 2000. As part of the submission of the budget 
for fiscal year 2001 under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
Code, OMB shall prepare a similar budget crosscut report itemizing the 
proposed fiscal project level funding for year 2002.
  (c) Performance Measures.--CALFED Agencies shall provide to the 
Congressional Committees by January 1, 2001, a clear statement of goals 
to achieve increased yield and environmental benefits as well as 
improved water system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, 
watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection for 
California. CALFED Agencies shall also provide ecological monitoring 
plans and protocols to be used for gauging performance of projects 
funded under this title relative to the stated ecological goals. Such 
monitoring protocols shall be compatible with the Comprehensive 
Monitoring Assessment and Research Program and incorporated into all 
ecosystem projects, grants, and awards of funds appropriated pursuant 
to this Act. CALFED Agencies shall collect, directly or through the 
relevant agencies, all monitoring data and use it to assess the 
effectiveness of the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan implementation. 
CALFED Agencies shall also ensure that monitoring data collected for 
projects funded by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
Restoration Fund and under other relevant authorities are compatible 
and designed to measure overall trends in ecosystem health in the Bay-
Delta watershed.
  (d) Objective Science.--The Federal Agencies shall ensure that all 
aspects of the CALFED Program components use credible and objective 
scientific review and ensure decisions are based on the best available, 
independent peer-reviewed information.

SEC. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

  In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the CALFED Agencies shall 
operate in compliance with California water law. Nothing in this Act 
shall be construed to invalidate or preempt State environmental, land 
use, or water law.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 5130 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to provide cost sharing for the CALFED water 
enhancement programs in California.

                               BACKGROUND

    The California San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta (Bay-Delta) is the largest estuary on the West Coast. Its 
varied ecosystem includes a maze of tributaries, sloughs, and 
islands encompassing 738,000 acres. Lying at the confluence of 
California's two largest rivers, the Sacramento and the San 
Joaquin, the Delta includes 70,000 acres of wetlands and 
supports over 120 fish and wildlife species.
    The Delta is also the home for thousands of Californians 
whose predecessors built an extensive system of levees and 
reclaimed most of the Delta islands in the 1800s. It supports a 
thriving rural economy based on agriculture, small businesses, 
mineral extraction, and residences.
    The Bay-Delta is also critical to California's economy as a 
whole, because drinking water for two-thirds of California and 
irrigation water for 200 crops (including 45 percent of the 
Nation's produce) pass through the Delta. However, the system 
no longer serves as a reliable source of high-quality water, 
and the levees face an unacceptably high risk of breaching. 
Several native species in the area have been listed as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    In the last two decades the population of California has 
grown by over 30 percent while the water supply has increased 
by a mere two percent. Much of the promised water deliveries 
for cities and farms throughout California have not been met. 
In the intervening years urban and rural water users have 
adopted many water conservation measures to make up the 
difference. The demands on the water system have stretched to 
the point that new system yield is needed.
    Over the last several years water users have had to curtail 
water use in several parts of the State, not because of a 
shortage of water, but because of ability to store and gain 
access to the water. The State of California is in its sixth 
consecutive ``wet'' year, yet the water-consuming public has 
faced shortages based on regulatory redirection of water 
supplies. It is clear that there will be severe, unmitigatable 
impacts when the first year of the next drought occurs. In 
California, it is rare for any 8-10 year period to pass without 
experiencing at least one drought year. Usually there are about 
as many drought years as wet years.
    The lack of a reliable water supply yield in California to 
meet all the needs of competing water uses led to the 
development, in December 1994, of the Bay-Delta Accord, signed 
by some of the state and federal regulatory agencies involved 
in water and environmental management. The Accord was also 
signed with the cooperation of various public interest groups. 
The Accord created a state-federal coordination group to better 
integrate the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. 
The Accord led to the establishment of the CALFED Bay-Delta 
Program in May 1995. The intent of the program was to develop a 
long-term comprehensive plan to restore ecological health to 
the Delta and enhance water supply, reliability, and quality 
while honoring the water and private property rights of local 
residents.
    In September 1996, Congress enacted the California Bay-
Delta Environmental Enhancement Act, which authorized $143.3 
million per year in additional federal funding for Bay-Delta 
ecosystem restoration activities in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Since 
its passage, the CALFED program has proven unresponsive to 
members who have asked for information on CALFED activities in 
their district or other areas of responsibility. The extension 
of the CALFED program adopted by the Committee is designed to 
make sure that there is adequate Congressional review as the 
program meets the multiple goals of improved water supply, 
environmental management, water quality, and system 
maintenance. This authorization will also ensure that the 
CALFED program emphasizes well-grounded, sound science for 
decisions and actions.
    Under the Bay-Delta Accord there was a general 
understanding that the time had come to improve the 
environment, establish reliable water supplies, and improve 
water quality. Since its inception water users have actually 
lost hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water from the 
system. Water quality remains a concern based on the operation 
of the system. And while a great deal of money has been 
appropriated for environmental restoration, the program lacks 
the kind of good science, success measurement tools, and 
coordinated operation which should be a foundation of this 
effort.
    California Governor Davis and Secretary of the Interior 
Babbitt charted new ground in the Framework for Action by 
proposing that the State and federal governments step up to the 
plate to fund environmental protection so project delays and 
misplaced financial burdens do not fall on the water consuming 
public. H.R. 5130 builds on that principle and makes sure that 
the Environmental Water Account (EWA) is pursued aggressively 
and administered equitably. Beyond that, it provides a safety 
net for the environment and water users if the financing 
targets of the EWA are not fully realized.
    This bill improves how the CALFED program is managed in 
California. Specifically it: (1) addresses the need for 
additional water yield options in the State of California; (2) 
assures that federally-funded CALFED projects come before 
Congress prior to appropriation of funds; (3) continues to 
reduce the demand on Northern California water through the 
development of water reuse and recycling; (4) requires federal 
agencies to take steps to encourage broad public, tribal and 
local government involvement in developing a CALFED governance 
proposal; (5) assures that the regulatory relief promised by 
the Babbitt/Davis Administrations is adhered to; (6) requires 
that prior to any federal land acquisition of private lands, 
certain requirements need to be met; and (7) directs the CALFED 
agencies to operate in compliance with California water law.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 5130 was introduced on September 7, 2000, by 
Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and additional to the Committee 
onTransportation and Infrastructure. On September 20, 2000, the 
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Doolittle 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to assure regulatory 
relief and compliance with California State water law. Representative 
George Miller offered a substitute amendment to the Doolittle 
amendment, which was ruled non-germane. The Doolittle amendment was 
adopted 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

    The section provides a short title for the bill, the 
``CALFED Extension Act of 2000''.

Section 2. Purpose

    The purpose of this bill is to authorize interim funding 
for the Secretary of the Interior to implement the CALFED 
program, except as otherwise provided in this bill. This 
authorization will ensure the implementation of ecosystem 
protection programs, and development of water supply 
enhancement projects critically needed to achieve increased 
water supply and environmental benefits as well as improved 
water system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency, 
watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection for 
California. This authorization will ensure that the CALFED 
program emphasizes well-grounded, sound science for decisions 
and actions.

Section 3. Definitions

    This section defines several words used throughout the 
bill. In particular, it identifies new water supply as ``a 
quantity of water, either derived from recycling existing 
sources, stored in a reservoir, or by other means that is 
reliably available in critically dry years.''

Section 4. Water system improvements

    This section provides for a balanced approach to water 
management in California. It is designed to ensure that the 
CALFED program results in continuous, measurable, and 
significant benefits in the California water system to achieve 
increased yield and environmental enhancement. It will assure 
that funding to increase water yield in the State and to 
improve environmental benefits will proceed together, with 
adequate progress in each area.
    A key goal of this section is to ensure that water storage 
development and conveyance facilities proceed together. The 
Committee wants to make sure that additional opportunities to 
move water out of the Bay-Delta do not proceed without new 
supplies being developed to meet the needs of the areas where 
the water to be conveyed originates. There was a concern that 
additional conveyance, without additional system yield, would 
merely make environmental goals and water sufficiency harder to 
achieve in upstream locations. The section also clarifies that 
this CALFED authorization has nothing to do with the 
authorization of any new facility, including any implicit or 
explicit authorization of the Hood Diversion, any Peripheral 
Canal, or any substitute. CALFED continues to evaluate a 
variety of water enhancement and management options but any 
proposal for additional facilities requiring federal funds 
would have to come before Congress for subsequent scrutiny and 
authorization.
    One of the important considerations in this section was a 
desire by the Committee to include adequate consideration of 
the economic viability of water projects. Throughout the 
hearing process and subsequent correspondence, the Committee 
became concerned that projects were being evaluated for storage 
and yield without making an objective determination of the 
relative cost per acre-foot of the new yield being considered.

Section 5. Program 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. The Committee wants to be very clear 
that the future governance of the CALFED program needs to be a 
multiparty structure originating in California with broad 
public, tribal, and local government involvement. On that 
basis, a structure could be advanced that would carry out the 
responsibilities of the CALFED program only after it has been 
authorized by both Congress and the California legislature.

Section 6. Environmental water management

    A problem acknowledged by both Governor Davis and Secretary 
Babbitt is a federal and state regulatory process gone awry 
within the State of California. The California water system was 
designed to meet the needs of a world-class agriculture system 
and growing cities. For the last several years the water system 
has been managed with the effect that fish priorities have been 
addressed while jeopardizing water quality, human consumption 
needs, and system reliability. The current operation of the 
system is not producing balance.
    This section requires the Secretary to manage the 
Environmental Water Account so that environmental goals can be 
met, but will be carried out in such a way that there will be 
no annual net loss of water to water users in the Central 
Valley Project, the State Water Project, and other water user 
operations because of actions taken to avoid jeopardy due to 
ESA, or other environmental requirements. The program would be 
authorized to make sure that the public benefits are matched by 
public expenditures to achieve these important goals.

Section 7. Land acquisition

    This section is designed to ensure that federal or State 
owned land is first identified to reach CALFED program 
objectives. If private lands are proposed for acquisition, the 
federal government cannot take additional private property off 
the tax rolls unless the existing federal commitment to make 
payments in lieu of taxes on existing federal lands within the 
county are currently paid. In addition, theCALFED agencies are 
being charged to consider the cumulative impact on the local government 
and communities of transferring the property into government ownership 
and then devise ways to mitigate such impacts. The section requires the 
federal government to develop a program in cooperation with the State 
agencies, landowners and local agencies to achieve local economic and 
social goals at the same time it implements the ecosystem restoration 
goals in the Record of Decision

Section 8. List of proposed federal expenditures

    In recognition of the fact that the CALFED program has 
operated as a preauthorization/block grant program, the 
Committee believes that there needs to be an adjustment to 
return the federal funding mechanism to Congress to allow 
Congress to clearly understand what expenditures are planned 
prior to a federal appropriation. This mechanism will be a 
report to Congress that will identify the proposed projects to 
be carried out with the federal portion of the funds prior to 
the actual appropriation of the funds.

Section 9. Annual reports

    This section provides for annual reporting.

Section 10. Program funding

    This section authorizes $60 million in appropriations to 
the Secretary of the Interior for fiscal year 2001.

Section 11. Program responsibilities

    This section focuses on the need for the CALFED program to 
improve coordination with the state and federal agencies; 
provide meaningful annual budget crosscuts; adopt performance 
measures that provide a real basis for adaptive management 
rather than continual policy drifting with no goals or 
financial accountability; and the use of objective science 
rather than the current agency speculation driven by regulatory 
objectives.

Section 12. Compliance with State law

    This section ensures that the authorization does not 
inadvertently adversely affect the existing California legal 
structure.

            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. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    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, October 6, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
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. 5130, the CALFED 
Extension Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel 
Applebaum.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5130--CALFED Extension Act of 2000

    Summary: A consortium of federal agencies and the State of 
California participate in the CALFED Bay-Delta program to 
improve the water supply and environment in the area of the San 
Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. H.R. 5130 
would authorize the appropriation of $60 million for this 
program. H.R. 5130 also would require federal agencies to study 
all options for water storage projects, require federal 
agencies to acquire Congressional approval before proceeding 
with any project, and make other changes to the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 5130 would cost $60 million 
over the 2001-2005 period. H.R. 5130 would not affect direct 
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply. H.R. 5130 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.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 5130 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--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

CALFED Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\........................................      60       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      30      48      35      15       5       0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.........................................       0      60       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0       9      12      15      15       9
CALFED Spending Under H.R. 5130:
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................      60      60       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      30      57      47      30      20       9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes enactment 
of H.R. 5130 early in fiscal year 2001 and appropriation of the 
authorized amount. Outlay estimates are based on information 
from the Bureau of Reclamation and historic spending patterns 
for the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5130 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Applebaum. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie 
Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.
    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.

             DISSENTING VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER

    Enactment of H.R. 5130 as reported will do severe damage to 
the CALFED water program in California. While we need to 
reauthorize CALFED in order to assure that the $60 million 
requested by the President is appropriated, passage of H.R. 
5130 as reported would undermine the long negotiations and 
careful planning that have gone into the CALFED Framework 
document. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, California 
Governor Gray Davis, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, 
and more than 40 state, local, and national environmental and 
public interest organizations clearly indicated their strong 
opposition to H.R. 5130. The Secretary of the Interior and the 
Administrator of EPA have both advised they will recommend a 
veto of any legislation containing these divisive CALFED 
provisions.
    CALFED officials held thousands of hours of negotiations 
with dozens of state and federal planners and hundreds of 
stakeholders, and many public comment sessions over the past 
four years in order to arrive at its Framework package. By 
contrast, H.R. 5130 was introduced just a few weeks before the 
Committee convened to consider the bill, and has been the 
subject of no hearings whatsoever.
    The CALFED process is widely viewed as the key for 
resolving California's legendary water disputes. State and 
Federal agency heads on August 28, 2000 signed a comprehensive 
``Record of Decision,'' a document that describes in great 
detail how the agencies and many stakeholder groups believe 
California should implement this new blueprint for solving the 
state's water problems.
    H.R. 5130 as reported in effect re-writes the recent CALFED 
Record of Decision before the ink is dry. The bill introduces 
extraneous and divisive requirements that are guaranteed to 
disrupt sensible water planning efforts in California for years 
to come. The bill will compound endangered species problems and 
unravel years of effort to implement the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act. Moreover, the legislation threatens the 
underlying integrity of the CALFED process: who will be willing 
to devote hundreds of hours to the planning and implementation 
efforts that are so critical to California's future if all of 
that work can be undone without consultation by a congressional 
committee acting without benefit of public input or expert 
opinion?
    H.R. 5130 as reported is not a simple extension of the 
CALFED program. It is a major re-write of carefully negotiated 
plans for water development and management in California for 
the next several decades. The language will negate over 5 years 
of negotiations and studies by California water users, 
scientists, economists, environmentalists, and 18 agencies of 
the Federal government and State of California.
    H.R. 5130 as reported reverses CALFED decisions regarding 
new dams for water storage in California. CALFED has carefully 
selected new storage projects that are cost-effective and can 
be build with minimal environmental damage. H.R. 5130 as 
reported would require CALFED to reopen its analysis of water 
storage projects, including highly controversial projects such 
as the proposed Auburn Dam.
    H.R. 5130 as reported requires micro-management of the 
CALFED process by Congress, including project-level 
congressional approvals. This would delay and politicize the 
CALFED program and undermine the science-based approach to 
restoration that the bill claims to support.
    California water issues are complex and have far-reaching 
implications for California's future. CALFED must continue to 
do its challenging work without the controversial and 
extraneous revisions unilaterally proposed in H.R. 5130 as 
reported. This flawed legislation is clearly intended to 
undermine sound water policy planning and management for 
California, and it should be rejected in favor of a simple and 
non-controversial extension of the CALFED authority.
                                                     George Miller.

                                  

```