Several western states, including California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and portions of Montana and Idaho, are experiencing extreme—and in some cases exceptional—drought conditions. To date, federal legislative proposals to address drought have focused on the persistence and intensity of the drought in the western states and the federal role in managing water supplies, supporting drought-related projects and programs, and conserving fish species and their habitat. A number of bills have been introduced in the 114 th Congress that would address drought. These bills include S. 176 , S. 1837 , S. 1894 , H.R. 2898 , H.R. 2983 , and H.R. 3045 , among others. Two of these bills in particular, H.R. 2898 and S. 1894 , have received congressional and broad public attention and are the focus of t his report. On July 17, 2015, H.R. 2898 , the Western Water and American Food Security Act, was passed by the House. The House bill has 11 titles, which address a wide range of issues. On July 29, 2015, S. 1894 , the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2015, was introduced in the Senate. The Senate bill includes four titles, many of which address elements that were not included in H.R. 2898 . As California experiences its fourth year of drought and the Southwest endures more than a decade of drought conditions, western water management will likely remain an issue before Congress. Elements from one or both of these bills (as well as from other bills) will likely receive continued attention from Congress. This report summarizes the provisions of S. 1894 , as introduced, and H.R. 2898 , as passed by the House. It identifies comparable provisions between the two bills and discusses some of the ways in which those provisions overlap or differ. It also summarizes selected other major provisions in each bill. Overall, both bills contain provisions that focus on infrastructure and water conveyance in California. Some of these provisions would be triggered by drought conditions or declarations, and others would result in permanent changes in water management. Some provisions in the bills are associated with specified states (typically the 17 western states, Hawaii, and Alaska), whereas other provisions may have national application. Many provisions of H.R. 2898 have no specified authorization of appropriations; S. 1894 , by contrast, contains provisions that authorize either funding subject to appropriations or mandatory funding for certain activities. Many provisions in both bills are specific to the projects and programs of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), but others are associated with other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). Some provisions would amend existing programs and activities, whereas others would authorize new programs and activities. Several drought-related issues are addressed in both H.R. 2898 and S. 1894 . For example, both bills contain multiple sections that focus on infrastructure and water conveyance in California, often specifically pertaining to management of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). Some of the California-specific common issue areas include management of fish populations and water flows; the CALFED invasive species program; operational flexibility and drought relief; operation of the Delta Cross Channel gates; emergency environmental reviews; water transfers; water rights protections; and completion of CALFED storage studies. Other sections discuss common goals to address drought on a broader scale, the most notable of which are construction of new surface water storage projects and amendments to Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) authority under the SECURE Water Act (Title IV of P.L. 111-11 ). Water projects and water diversions can affect fish habitat and fish populations. In California, the coordinated operations of the CVP and the State Water Project (SWP) serve millions of people and thousands of acres of farmland throughout much of the state. Both projects collect and store water in reservoirs in northern California. They also divert water from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers' Delta confluence with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta) and pump it south to water users in Central and Southern California. CVP and SWP pumping from the Bay-Delta has been reduced and other project operations have been altered due to drought conditions, as well as to protect threatened and endangered species and to preserve in-Delta water quality. Operational changes associated with compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) aim to protect and recover threatened and endangered species. State water quality requirements aim to stabilize salinity levels in the Bay-Delta, protect water quality for in-Delta farmers and nearby communities, and provide adequate flows for aquatic species and their habitat. Both H.R. 2898 and S. 1894 include provisions that would address water conveyance and flows in relation to fish populations listed under ESA. Specifically, both bills would address certain operations of the CVP and SWP in relation to biological opinions (BiOps) associated with the threatened Delta smelt and with threatened and endangered salmon species under ESA. A BiOp is the formal response of either the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to a federal agency stating whether or not a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed under ESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species' critical habitat. A BiOp can have an incidental take statement (an allowance of how many individuals of a listed species can be taken) and reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to proposed activities. The next few sections summarize how both bills address the management of water flows in relation to fish populations. Both bills present a set of definitions to complement their provisions, including definitions of the salmonid BiOp and the smelt BiOp. Both bills would define the term Salmonid Biological Opinion as the opinion issued under the federal ESA by the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009. Both bills also would define the term Smelt Biological Opinion as the biological opinion on the Long-Term Operational Criteria and Plan for coordination of the CVP and SWP issued by FWS on December 15, 2008. Both BiOp definitions appear to codify the specified BiOp (based on its original date) and therefore would not allow for new scientific information beyond what is directed in other provisions of the bill to be used. In relation to identifying the condition of species, H.R. 2898 would define "negative impact on the long-term survival" as follows: The term "negative impact on the long-term survival" means to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. This phrase is used several times in H.R. 2898 in regard to how the effects to a species of a water project or water diversion would be measured. While similar terminology is not formally defined under ESA, federal regulations implementing ESA provide a definition for the phrase "jeopardize the continued existence of " that is comparable to that provided above (with a few notable differences): Jeopardize the continued existence of means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. S. 1894 does not define jeopardy or any other term that involves effects on species; thus, some may argue that it appears to defer to existing laws and regulations when conditioning changes to operations criteria. For example, Section 121 of S. 1894 generally would provide that nothing under S. 1894 authorizes any federal official to take an action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their habitat beyond the effects listed in the BiOps. Both bills aim to increase water supplies for users by authorizing changes in how pumps and flow rates are managed in the Delta. H.R. 2898 calls for maximizing water supplies to users but has several earlier provisions that would specify water flows and the conditions to keep these flows at certain levels. For example, H.R. 2898 would address water flow requirements for Delta smelt by setting fixed flow rates in the Old and Middle River s unless the Secretary determines there is an imminent negative impact on the long-term survival of the Delta smelt. In contrast, S. 1894 would not set specific pumping rates in relation to Delta smelt populations. However, Section 101(a)(1) of S. 1894 would direct water managers to maximize water supplies while staying consistent with applicable laws and regulations. In relation to Delta smelt, this provision means that under S. 1894 , pumping flows would be maximized while aiming to be consistent with the parameters of the Delta smelt BiOp. Both bills call for greater data collection on the Delta smelt population through a Delta smelt distribution study. Both also would authorize greater real-time monitoring of Delta smelt to advise water conveyance management. However, the bills would take different approaches to monitoring and implementing changes to operations. Section 103(a) of H.R. 2898 is a broad provision that would require the director of FWS to use the best scientific and commercial data to evaluate, refine, or amend the RPAs in the Delta smelt BiOp. It would direct the Secretary of the Interior, however, to make all "significant decisions" under the Delta smelt BiOp and document those decisions. S. 1894 does not have this broad directive to potentially change parts of the Delta smelt BiOp; however, under Section 101(a)(8), S. 1894 would direct the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior (the Secretaries) to use all scientific tools to identify changes to the real-time operations of Reclamation and of state and local water projects that could increase water supplies.