PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 30, 2011
More Water for Our Valley Act, 2011 - Deems requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 relating to operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project to be satisfied with regard to the species and their critical habitat covered by the biological opinions for the operations of such Projects issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service if: (1) the alternatives described in that portion of the biological opinions entitled "Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives" are implemented, and (2) the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce carry out flow and pumping operation mandates established by this Act with respect to reverse flow in the Old and Middle Rivers between December 1 and June 30, rates of export between April 1 and May 31, and monthly average X2 between September 1 and November 30.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to modify such mandates upon recommendations of the National Research Council Committee on Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in the California Bay-Delta, if such modifications would: (1) provide greater benefits to the species covered by such biological opinions; and (2) not reduce the water delivery capability of such Projects more than their delivery capability allowed under such mandates.
Requires such Secretaries to: (1) establish a fish hatchery program or refuge to preserve and restore the delta smelt in collaboration with the governor of California; (2) implement a habitat program under which each Secretary shall identify, prioritize, and implement key ecosystem restoration and fish passage projects in the ecosystem of, and on tributaries to, the California Bay-Delta to help ensure the viability of at-risk species and threatened or endangered species; and (3) install the Head of Old River Barrier during the April-May pulse flow, as set forth in California State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights Decision 1641.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Preempts any state law that authorizes the imposition of restrictions on the operation of the Projects in a manner that is more restrictive than this Act.
Terminates this Act on March 1, 2015.
People & committees
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-20] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2050)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1251 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1251 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1251 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1251 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.