How People Voted
30% For, 70% Against
Take Action
![]() ![]() |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
![]() ![]() |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
| del.icio.us | |
| Digg | |
| Yahoo! | |
H.R. 4074, The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
- This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as H.R. 372, The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.
Comparing revision saved on May 14, 2008, 19:46:09 (webmaster), with revision saved on May 15, 2008, 19:42:42 (webmaster):
H.R. 4074 would authorize the implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Stipulation of Settlement dated September 13, 2006, in <i>Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al.</i>, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, in cooperation with the state of California. Directs the Secretary to: (1) enter into agreements with California to facilitate or expedite Settlement implementation; and (2) identify impacts and measures to mitigate impacts<b>(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on adjacent and downstream water users and landowners. Provides that Settlement implementation and the reintroduction of Chinook salmon shall not result in the involuntary reduction in contract water allocations to Central Valley Project long-term contractors apart from Friant Division contractors.measure.)</b>
Authorizes<b>Title I: The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act</b> - (Sec. 101) San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act - Directs the Secretary to: (1) acquire through purchase from willing sellers property neededof the Interior (the Secretary), in cooperation with the state of California, to implement the Settlement;Stipulation of Settlement dated September 13, 2006, in <i>Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al.</i>, United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Directs the Secretary to: (1) enter into agreements with California to facilitate or expedite Settlement implementation; and (2) dispose of such property. Requires proceeds fromidentify impacts and measures to mitigate impacts on adjacent and downstream water users and landowners. Provides that Settlement implementation and the disposalreintroduction of such propertyChinook salmon shall not result in the involuntary reduction in contract water allocations to be deposited into a San Joaquin River Restoration Fund. Central Valley Project long-term contractors apart from Friant Division contractors.
Declares that(Sec. 105) Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) purchase property needed to implement the Settlement satisfiesfrom willing sellers; and discharges the Secretary's obligations under the Reclamation Projects Authorization(2) dispose of such property and Adjustment Act of 1992. Provides for the reintroduction of Chinook salmondeposit proceeds into the San Joaquin River. River Restoration Fund.
Directs(Sec. 107) Declares that the Settlement satisfies and discharges the Secretary's obligations under the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
(Sec. 109) Requires the costs of implementing the Settlement to be covered by payments or in kind contributions made by Friant Division contractors and other non-federal parties, with specified costs shared by California. Directs the Secretary to: (1)to enter into agreements with California to fund or implement improvements on a project-by-project basis.
(Sec. 110) Directs the Secretary to convert specified long-term contracts to provide for the repayment of construction costs; (2)costs.
(Sec. 111) Provides for the reintroduction of Chinook salmon into the San Joaquin River, contingent upon the Secretary of Commerce finding that a permit for such reintroduction may be issued under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(Sec. 112) Directs the Secretary to establish a conservation of resources fee for non-producing federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and (3)Mexico, revenues from which shall be treated as offsetting receipts.
<b>Title II: Study to Develop Water Plan; Report</b> - (Sec. 201) Directs the Secretary: (1) acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to provide direct financial assistance to the California Water Institute to study coordination and integration of sub-regional integrated regional water management plans into a unified Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.Plan; and (2) to ensure that a report containing the results of the Plan is submitted to specified congressional committees within 24 months after financial assistance is made available to the Institute. Authorizes appropriations.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 5/13/2008: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 395.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Savings per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)




Visitor Comments
There are currently no comments for this bill.