PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 1, 2017
Sacramento Valley Water Storage and Restoration Act
This bill directs the Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to:
complete the final feasibility study authorized under the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act for the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, California, which shall evaluate the development of the project as a non-federal project whereby Interior may be a participant in the locally preferred project;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
work with the Department of Commerce, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate the efforts of the relevant agencies and work with the state of California, the Sites Project Authority, and other stakeholders to complete and issue the final joint environmental impact statement and report on the project;
submit such study and report to specified congressional committees; and
take steps necessary to ensure that, in return for any federal investment in a non-federal Sites project, a proportionate share of the project's public benefits are federal benefits.
The bill amends the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act to: (1) authorize Interior to participate in construction of the project if Interior determines that the project is feasible; and (2) direct the Bureau, at the Authority's request, to enter into a partnership agreement for the Authority to provide full project management control for construction of the project or a separable element of the project.
The bill directs: (1) the Bureau to advance the project as a non-federal project under specified circumstances, and (2) Interior to execute a long-term agreement with the Authority for the coordination of operations of the Sites project and the Central Valley Project.
With respect to the Sites project, the Bureau shall: (1) be the lead federal agency for the purposes of all federal reviews, approvals, or decisions required under federal law to allow either the Bureau or the Authority to construct the project; and (2) take steps necessary to ensure that all such reviews, approvals, or decisions are completed on an expeditious basis by January 1, 2022.
People & committees
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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 11, 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.1269 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.1269 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.1269 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.1269 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.