PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 9, 2009
San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary), in cooperation with the state of California, to implement the Stipulation of Settlement dated September 13, 2006, in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., 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) identify impacts of facilities construction or operation decisions and measures to mitigate such impacts on adjacent and downstream water users and landowners before implementing such decisions. 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 other than Friant Division contractors.
Requires the Secretary to prepare an environmental analysis prior to releasing Interim Flows. Authorizes the Secretary to release such flows to the extent that they would not impede or delay completion of specified measures in the Settlement or exceed existing downstream channel capacities.
Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) purchase property needed to implement the Settlement; and (2) dispose of such property and deposit proceeds into the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund established in the Treasury.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that the Settlement satisfies and discharges the Secretary's obligations under the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. Provides for the reintroduction of California Central Valley Spring Run Chinook salmon into the San Joaquin River.
Directs the Secretary, 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 plan.
Directs the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies on: (1) restoration of the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal and Madera Canal; and (2) reverse flow pump-back facilities on the Friant-Kern Canal.
Authorizes the Secretary to provide financial assistance to local agencies within the Central Valley Project for facilities to bank water underground or to recharge groundwater and to recover such water.
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 Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.372 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.372 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.372 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.372 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.