Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995 - Amends the Central Valley Project Improvement Act to redefine: (1) "anadromous fish" to exclude striped bass, sturgeon, and American shad; (2) "Central Valley Project water" to mean water developed, diverted, stored, or delivered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with statutes authorizing the Central Valley Project (CVP) and with the terms and conditions of water rights permits or licenses acquired by or issued to the United States pursuant to California law; and (3) "repayment contract" and "water service contract" to exclude contracts which contain terms or agreements for water rights settlements or exchanges. (Sec. 4) Prohibits the Secretary from entering into any new short- term, temporary, or long-term contracts or agreements for water supply from the CVP for any purpose other than fish and wildlife before the Secretary has completed appropriate environmental review and has determined that there is sufficient water to meet existing contractual and legal obligations. Directs the Secretary, upon request, to renew any existing long- term repayment or water service contracts which provide for the delivery of water from the CVP for a period of 25 years and to renew such contracts for successive 25-year periods. Validates and ratifies all contracts renewed by the Secretary since January 1, 1988, with an exception. (Sec. 5) Revises provisions regarding: (1) water transfers; (2) water conservation standards; (3) fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration; and (5) the CVP Restoration Fund. (Sec. 8) Directs the Secretary, on a priority basis and within two years, to develop and submit to the Congress a least-cost plan to increase CVP yield by the amount reserved and managed for fish and wildlife purposes and otherwise required to meet CVP purposes. Authorizes and directs the Secretary to coordinate with California in implementing measures for the long-term resolution of problems in the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Directs the Secretary to identify the water supply impacts resulting from the reallocation of Stanislaus River water for fish and wildlife purposes and to develop and implement a plan to provide long- term replacement water in an amount equal to the identified impacts on out-of-basin entities which have contracted with the Secretary for water from the New Melones Project.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1906 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1906 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1906 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1906 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.