PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 15, 2011
Deems the submission of a Notice of Determination for a CVP project or issuance of a permit related to such project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act to meet environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 for that project or permit. Declares that the Bureau of Reclamation shall not be required to cease activity on such a project pending completion of a review or legal challenge of such a Notice or issuance of such a permit.
Defines "CVP" to mean Central Valley Project and "project" to mean activity that: (1) is undertaken or funded by, or that requires an issuance of a permit by, a public agency; (2) has a potential to result in physical change to the environment; (3) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies; and (4) may include construction activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit.
Subjects an authorized CVP project to judicial review only in the U.S. district court for a district in which the authorized project is located. Limits the length of preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal covering an authorized CVP project to 60 days, subject to renewals. Directs the court, in considering an injunction to an agency action under an authorized project, to balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by the project of the short- and long-term effects of undertaking the action against those of not undertaking the action.
People & committees
Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-19] · 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 Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Jan 16, 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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.