RAIN Act

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, which I introduced today. Representative Jim Costa has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill authorizes one-third cost-share totaling $653 million for restoring the capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta-Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct.

Coordinated legislation in the State legislature introduced by State Senator Melissa Hurtado has led to a downpayment on a State cost-share for restoring the canals' capacity. Local water districts would be responsible for the remainder of the cost not covered by the State or Federal governments.

In addition, the bill authorizes an additional $180 million to restore salmon runs on the San Joaquin River. The funding is for fish passage structures, levees, and other improvements that will allow the threatened Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon to swim freely upstream from the ocean to the Friant Dam.

My bill would help California water users and California's Nation- leading agriculture industry comply with a recent State requirement to end the overpumping of groundwater. The stakes are huge: If we don't bring groundwater into balance, then the San Joaquin Valley will lose access to about 2 million acre-feet of water per year.

Unless local water agencies and the State and Federal governments act, a recent U.C. Berkeley study has projected severe impacts from these water supply losses: 798,000 acres of land would have to be retired from agricultural production, nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half the fruit and vegetables grown in the Nation; and $5.9 billion would be lost in annual farm income in a region that is almost entirely reliant on agriculture.

One of the most economical and efficient ways to restore groundwater balance is to convey floodwater to farmland where it can recharge the aquifer. California has the most variable precipitation of any State. When massive storms from atmospheric rivers occur, there is runoff to recharge aquifers--but only if we can effectively convey the floodwaters throughout the San Joaquin Valley to recharge areas.

However, the major canals are in desperate need of repair and have lost as much as 60 percent of their capacity. The bill I am introducing today would provide Federal assistance to help fix these Federal canals.

Specifically, the bill would authorize $653.4 million in a Federal funding-cost share for three major projects to restore Federal canals damaged by subsidence to their former capacity: $180 million for the Friant-Kern Canal, which would move an additional 100,000 acre-feet per year on average; $183.9 million for the Delta Mendota Canal, which would move an additional 62,000 acre-feet per year on average; and $289.5 million for California Aqueduct repairs, which would move an additional 205,000 acre-feet per year on average. While parts of the California Aqueduct are State-owned, the majority of the repairs are on its federally owned portion.

This will give local farmers a fighting chance to bring their groundwater basins into balance without being forced to retire vast amounts of land.

Critically, the ability to deliver floodwaters through restored Federal canals will allow the water districts to invest in their own turnouts, pumps, detention basins, and other groundwater recharge projects. The South Valley Water Association, which covers just a small part of the valley, provided my office with a list of 36 such projects for its area alone.

The Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC has determined that groundwater recharge projects are the best option to help the San Joaquin Valley comply with the new State groundwater pumping law. PPIC projects that the valley can make up 300,000 to 500,000 acre-feet of its groundwater deficit through recharge projects.

A study commissioned by the coalition group Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley estimates that reductions in groundwater could cause a loss of up to 42,000 farm and agricultural jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Another 40,000 jobs or more could be lost statewide each year due to reductions in valley agricultural production, putting the total at approximately 85,000 jobs statewide. Most of these impacts will fall disproportionately on economically disadvantaged communities.

Let me now turn to the three critical canals that the bill would help restore. The Friant-Kern Canal is a key feature of the Friant Division of the Federal Central Valley Project on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley. For nearly 70 years, the Friant Division successfully kept groundwater tables stable on the Eastside. This provided a sustainable source of water for farms and for thousands of Californians and more than 50 small, rural, or disadvantaged communities who rely entirely on groundwater for their household water supplies.

But unsustainable groundwater pumping in the valley has reduced the Friant-Kern Canal's ability to deliver water to all who need it. Land elevation subsidence caused by overpumping means that not all of the supplies stored at Friant Dam can be conveyed through the canal. In some areas, the canal can carry only 40 percent of what it is designed to deliver.

In 2017, a very wet year in which we should have banked as much floodwater as possible, the Friant-Kern Canal delivered 300,000 acre- feet of water less than it would have conveyed before subsidence. This water would have helped recharge groundwater in the south San Joaquin Valley, where the impacts of reduced water deliveries, water quality issues, and groundwater regulation are expected to be most severe.

The California Aqueduct serves more than 27 million people in Southern California and the Silicon Valley and more than 750,000 acres of the Nation's most productive farmland. But despite its name, much of the California Aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and serves portions of Silicon Valley, small towns and communities in the northern San Joaquin Valley, and farms from Firebaugh to Kettleman City. The aqueduct represents a successful 70-year partnership between the Federal Government and the State of California.

In recent years, particularly recent drought years, the California Aqueduct has subsided. It has lost as much as 20 percent of its capacity to move water to California's families, farms, and businesses. California is leading efforts to repair the aqueduct and is working to provide its share of funding, but the Federal Government will also need to pay its fair share. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $289.5

million toward restoring the California Aqueduct.

The Delta-Mendota Canal stretches southward 117 miles from the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, parallel to the California Aqueduct. The Delta-Mendota Canal has lost 15 percent of its conveyance capacity due to subsidence. The bill I am introducing today would authorize $183.9 million toward restoring its full ability to convey floodwaters to farms needing to recharge groundwater and to wildlife refuges of critical importance for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway.

This bill responds to a potential crisis that very possibly could cause the forced retirement of nearly one-sixth of the working farmland in an area that produces half of America's fruits and vegetables.

These are Federal canals, and the Federal Government must help give these farmers and agricultural communities a fighting chance to keep their lands in production.

Lastly, this legislation helps to restore a historic salmon run on California's second longest river, the San Joaquin.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the STREAM Act, Support to Rehydrate the Environment, Agriculture and Municipalities Act, which I am introducing today alongside my cosponsors, Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema. This bill is intended to help Western States upgrade their water infrastructure in preparation for the severe droughts and weather whiplash that we have seen the past few years and that will worsen significantly with climate change.

If we don't take action now, it is only going to get worse. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate change will cause a 54-percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the next 20 to 40 years and a 79-percent drop by the end of the century. This change alone could be devastating for California because we absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30 percent of our water supply and is our biggest reservoir.

For these reasons and others, we need an ``all of the above'' water strategy, including increased water supply; incentivizing projects that build in environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and investing in separate environmental restoration efforts.

The bill I am introducing today helps meet this challenge in four fundamental ways:

No. 1, it authorizes significant water supply funding that, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with 1.04 million additional acre-feet of water per year on average, enough water for over 6 million people.

No. 2, it provides additional financial incentives for water supply projects that include environmental benefits and drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

No. 3, it reforms the congressional review process to more quickly approve water supply projects;

No. 4, it significantly invests not only in water supply projects but also in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate change.

The recent drought in the West from 2020 to 2022 illustrates why this bill is so desperately needed.

In 2021, the drought caused the California agriculture industry to shrink by an estimated 8,745 jobs and incur $1.2 billion in direct costs, according to a report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California at Merced. Reduced water deliveries resulted in 395,000 acres of cropland left dry and unplanted.

Counting ``spillover effects'' in the broader economy, the U.C. Merced analysis found the total impacts were more than 14,600 lost jobs, both full time and part time, and $1.7 billion in gross revenue losses.

In both 2021 and 2022, homes in significant parts of the State were at risk of running dry. In 2021, large parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties and the Mendocino coast came very close to losing all water supply. In 2022, much of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties were placed under emergency orders limiting them to once-a- week landscape irrigation, with the possibility of a complete irrigation shutoff that was only avoided by the timely arrival of multiple atmospheric rivers last fall.

In California, one in eight acres statewide has burned from wildfires in the last decade, with the past 2 years being the worst on record. The drought has been devastating to the aquatic ecosystem as well as our forests. As just one example, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon depend on sufficient cold water released by Shasta Dam to rear their offspring in the Sacramento River.

With limited water available in 2021, NOAA Fisheries models predict that approximately 75 percent of the winter run Chinook salmon's eggs died from elevated water temperatures. This is a species with three 1- year age classes, and a prolonged drought could threaten the survival of the species.

To increase drought resiliency in California and other Western States, the bill authorizes the following funding over the next 5 years: $750 million for surface and groundwater storage projects and supporting conveyance, including $50 million for natural water retention and release projects; $300 million for water recycling projects; $150 million for desalination projects; $250 million for environmental restoration projects; and $100 million for drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

This funding builds on the bipartisan infrastructure law's funding of $1.15 billion for storage projects, $550 million for water recycling projects, and $250 million for desalination projects.

The STREAM Act, in combination with the bipartisan infrastructure law, would provide California with the Federal cost-share for approximately 1,042,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply, or enough water for over 6 million people. This comes from the following:

Enough funding for California to finally build three major off-stream storage projects providing 370,000 acre-feet of water on average each year: Sites Reservoir, the Los Vaqueros Expansion, and the BF Sisk raise. In addition, the storage funding could provide an additional 55,000 acre-feet per year from some combination of other smaller surface and groundwater storage projects like the Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank or Del Puerto Canyon Reservoir. All of the projects are non-Federal projects with a 25-percent Federal cost share, with the exception of the Federal BF Sisk Raise with a 50-percent Federal cost- share.

Enough funding for 532,000 additional acre-feet from water recycling projects, from the $300 million authorized in the bill plus $550 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25-percent Federal cost-share for projects.

Enough funding for approximately 85,000 additional acre-feet from the $150 million authorized in the bill for desalination projects, plus $250 million in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, with a 25 percent Federal cost-share for projects.

While virtually everyone supports water recycling projects, surface and groundwater storage projects are sometimes more controversial. I want to point out a 2022 report from the widely respected Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, which relates to the benefits of additional surface and groundwater storage as California's climate is changing.

Many climate forecasters emphasize that as climate change intensifies, California will get more of its precipitation in a few large to extraordinarily large storms fueled by atmospheric rivers, and more of the precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. In between the bursts of atmospheric rivers there will be longer and more intense droughts. We have definitely seen a preview of this pattern this year.

PPIC has studied these projections and estimated that there is substantial water in wet years that is not needed to maintain healthy Delta outflows but currently cannot be captured because California lacks the infrastructure to

store for future dry periods. PPIC suggests that given this reality, cost-effective storage projects in appropriate locations could help improve California's drought resiliency.

PPIC also argues that these storage projects should be managed for environmental flow benefits as well as water supply benefits. This bill would help with that because Federal funding for Sites Reservoir would help provide cold water for salmon, and Federal funding for the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would provide needed water for wildlife refuges. Regarding cold water reserves for salmon in particular, these reserves will be critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out during the potential fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth and seventh years of devastating droughts.

The bill's funding authorizations apply not just to California but throughout the 17 Western States where the Bureau of Reclamation has a presence. Many of these States have recently benefited from the Bureau of Reclamation's storage, water recycling, and desalination programs and/or have projects currently seeking funding from these programs, including Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico. I believe the Federal funding assistance authorized by this bill will be particularly important for all seven Colorado River basin States as the States negotiate the next painful round of water supply cuts from the Colorado River between now and 2026 in order to meet the challenge of an increasingly dry Colorado River basin.

In Arizona, the STREAM Act would significantly advance the Salt River Project's proposal to raise Bartlett Dam on the Verde River to counteract the loss of approximately one-third of the nearby Horseshoe Dam's capacity from accumulating sediment.

The bill uses financial incentives to encourage storage and conveyance projects to include environmental benefits and other public benefits such as drinking water for disadvantaged communities. This is important to ensure that the environment and disadvantaged communities are included in our drought resilience strategies.

If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects.

In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project.

This access to grants gives project sponsors a strong financial incentive to design environmental and disadvantaged community benefits into their projects. This approach builds on the experience of the Proposition 1 water bond California's voters passed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2014, which also incentivizes projects with environmental and other public benefits.

If storage and conveyance projects take these steps, they can get Federal grants both directly for the public benefits and for an equal value investment in the water supply component of the project. Thus, the Federal Government will provide $50 million for the general water supply benefits of a project if the project also has $50 million in fish and wildlife or water quality benefits either directly from the project or from an associated watershed restoration plan.

The bill not only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching taxpayer dollars further.

The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding new water supply projects has involved the following:

No. 1, reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade or more for major projects.

No. 2, once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects individually, which can take another 3 to 5 years or longer in many cases.

No. 3, the design and construction can take a decade or longer.

One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed by climate change to western water supply, we need a nimbler and more responsive model.

Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama Administration and currently Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, testified in support of a new model during an October 8, 2015, hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated:

The traditional Reclamation business model, in which

feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and

Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are

first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then

construction is authorized and funded, does not always

address the needs of project sponsors at the state and local

levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the

availability of other available financing mechanisms, the

historic Federal role in financing water storage projects

through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a

greater emphasis on non-Federal financing.

In response to the concerns articulated by then-Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing today, building on the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, makes two significant changes to the traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals and make more cost-effective use of available Federal funding.

First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize individual water recycling and desalination projects and non-Federal storage projects a Federal investment of less than $250 million. It can take 3 to 5 years or longer for projects to get legislatively approved. In fact, zero new water recycling projects were authorized from 2009 to 2017 despite dozens of meritorious projects with approved feasibility studies.

Federal storage projects, which are often more controversial, continue to require congressional authorization, as do non-Federal storage projects with a greater than $250 million Federal investment. The bill shortens the timeline for congressional approval of these projects through directing Reclamation to follow a process that the Army Corps of Engineers uses to notify Congress of completed feasibility studies each year to set up an orderly timeline to authorize projects.

Second, the bill no longer requires 100 percent Federal funding upfront as was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the bill allows a maximum of 50 percent Federal funding for federally owned projects and a maximum of 25 percent Federal funding for non-Federal projects that are built by States, water districts, or Indian Tribes.

Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California would be funded nearly 50 percent by the State of California, which has already conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 20 to 25 percent by the Federal Government and the remaining 25 to 30 percent by water users.

Multipartner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts.

If proposed storage projects solely provide irrigation and general municipal and industrial water supply benefits, the bill authorizes only low-interest loans to support these projects.

In contrast, the bill authorizes grants for storage and conveyance projects that include environmental benefits, drinking water benefits for disadvantaged communities, or other public benefits either as part of the project design or as part of a watershed restoration plan adopted together with the project.

Let me give an example of how this works. If a project sponsor is seeking $100 million in Federal funding for a $400 million non-Federal storage project, the sponsor can get that $100 million funding as a grant if there is

$100 million in public benefits from either the project itself or other projects as part of a watershed restoration plan approved with the project.

The public benefits could be either drinking water for disadvantaged communities or fish and wildlife benefits. Some examples of fish and wildlife or water quality benefits from a watershed plan could include water leasing during a dry year, water sharing agreements, water banking, ongoing water conservation, and related activities if they provide fish and wildlife or water quality benefits; environmental restoration projects; and natural water retention and release projects.

The longer and more severe droughts coming with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to improve species' drought resiliency as well.

The significant funding authorization of $250 million for environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different species, including fish and migratory birds. Some authorized uses of this funding include improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt, and other fish species adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects; additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along the Pacific flyway; improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with reduced environmental impacts; ensuring that when Sacramento Valley rice growers sell their water and idle their crops, some water is left behind and applied to bare fields in late summer and early fall to create shallow flooded habitat during a critical shorebird migration period; and assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State agencies and State water quality laws.

The bill would also authorize $50 million of the broader storage funding for natural water retention and release projects.

These projects would help restore stream and river channels with natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species. I look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multibenefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward with the bill.

The bill also authorizes pay-for-performance environmental restoration approaches that award grants contingent on the success of the restoration effort. These approaches can expedite environmental restoration and build public/private partnerships to increase the number of acres restored.

In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented consistently with all Federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state laws must also be followed.

California is home to more than 40 million people, but our major statewide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people.

We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state. Critically, this means putting in place infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to face as a result of climate change.

I hope my western colleagues will join my cosponsors and me on this bill because drought is a serious threat for all of our States.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation.

This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for repairing the aging facilities that serve them.

Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits.

This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 million.

In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers.

As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual water district that would receive less water under the modified project.

Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible.

There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support.

All too often, these communities' water supplies have become unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to meet their residents' basic daily needs.

In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income.

In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals.

As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these communities boost their local water supplies.

These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run very near the communities that would benefit.

To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair projects.

In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept modified project operations that give increased priority to public benefits.

To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated.

This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive less water than they would have under the original canals at full capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural water district opposition to project modifications to benefit disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges.

This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits or drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act of 2023. This legislation will make Federal crop insurance work better for wine grapes impacted by wildfire smoke exposure.

Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California, Oregon, and Washington are threatening the long-term sustainability of important winegrowing regions. Vineyards, winery operations, and the communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires that can not only destroy vineyards, but can damage fruit through prolonged smoke exposure, which can be absorbed into the grape, creating an ashy taste known as smoke taint.

The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke- exposed grapes. In 2020 alone, industry sources estimate that between 165,000 and 325,000 tons of California wine grapes were lost due to actual or perceived smoke damage, and financial estimates place losses at over $600 million.

Federal crop insurance tools are not working for winegrape producers grappling with the impacts of climate change induced wildfires. That's why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act.

The Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act of 2023 would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to research, develop, and create a crop insurance policy to better insure against wine grape losses due to wildfire smoke exposure.

Wine grapes are vital to the economies of California, Oregon, and Washington--the largest producers of wine grapes in the United States and the most impacted by smoke-exposure. But crop insurance is not working for wine grapes--current products do not fully capture the risks associated with growing in these smoke and wildfire-prone States.

That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act of 2023, to improve crop insurance for winegrape producers, wineries, and the consumers they support to help address the impossible choice facing producers after a wildfire: Does a grower harvest grapes knowing they may be unusable for wine or do they take an indemnity for what may be perfectly good grapes?

This bill gets us one step closer to answering that question.

I would like to thank my colleagues from California, Washington, and Oregon for joining me to introduce this bill and for our partners in the House, Representatives Mike Thompson and Dan Newhouse, for championing this bill in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke Exposure Crop Insurance Act as quickly as possible for inclusion in the 2023 farm Bill.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2023. This legislation will bolster research at land- grant universities along the west coast to better understand the impacts of wildfire smoke on wine grapes.

Increasingly frequent and catastrophic wildfires in California, Oregon, and Washington are threatening the long-term sustainability of important winegrowing regions. Vineyards, winery operations, and the communities they support are routinely facing the threat of wildfires that can not only destroy vineyards but even those vineyards that escape direct wildfire damage can still suffer from prolonged smoke exposure, which can be absorbed into grapes and create an ashy taste known as smoke taint.

The impact has been particularly acute for California's 4,800 wineries and 5,900 winegrape growers, who have seen significant property loss, loss of tourism, and loss of production due to smoke- exposed grapes. The 2020 wildfires alone are estimated to have cost wineries and winegrape growers $3.7 billion both from immediate fire- caused losses as well as losses in future sales due to unharvested grapes exposed to wildfire smoke.

Yet, there is a limited understanding of how to measure and identify compounds that cause smoke taint and even less understanding of the mitigation and risk management measures necessary to reduce these impacts.

Recognizing the dearth of information and how much is at stake for the wine industry, Congress provided $5 million to the USDA to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint and to develop mitigation methods to reduce or eliminate smoke taint.

This was a great first step, but we need more. That is what my bill would do.

The Smoke Exposure Research Act of 2023 would provide $32.5 million over 5 years to ensure the sustainability of the wine industry in the face of climate crisis.

Specifically, this bill would direct the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, in coordination with land- grant universities and researchers with viticulture and enology expertise, to identify the compounds responsible for smoke taint; establish standard sampling, testing, and screening tools for use in vineyards and wineries; and develop new risk assessment tools, mitigation measures, and management strategies for growers.

As researchers from the University of California Davis, Washington State University, and Oregon State University explain in recent research, the impact of smoke taint is not predictable.

We cannot currently predict which grapes may have suffered damage based on anything intuitive, such as sight, smell, or even the flavor of fresh grapes. ``Freshness of the smoke, number of times exposed, variety of grape--the list goes on. There's so much we don't know.''

That is why we need to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act, to ensure we have strong science-based data for actual risk management and mitigation tools to protect the U.S. wine industry.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, for his leadership bolstering California winegrowing communities and championing this bill in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Smoke Exposure Research Act as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Voluntary Agricultural Land Repurposing Act to support voluntary efforts to repurpose agricultural land to multibenefit uses. Enactment of this legislation would provide new tools for States, producers, water users, and Federal partners to adapt to long-term water scarcity at the basin scale.

The bill would modernize existing Federal programs at the Bureau of Reclamation to support long-term drought planning and resiliency by stakeholders.

Specifically, the bill would authorize funding for States that choose to pilot and implement their own multibenefit land repurposing programs. Eligible State-run programs must be basin-scale, reduce consumptive water use, and repurpose irrigated agricultural land for at least 10 years. Programs must also provide one or more other measurable benefits to the environment or community, including the restoration habitat or floodplains connection to streams or rivers, the creation of dedicated recharge areas, the facilitation of renewable energy projects, the creation of parks or recreational areas, and other listed uses. The bill would also prioritize State programs that provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities or were developed through a multistakeholder planning process.

Because it may take time for States to stand up or pilot programs, the bill would also make multibenefit land repurposing an eligible use under the WaterSMART Program so that individual water users could apply and compete for funding for multibenefit land repurposing projects.

Water scarcity at the basin scale demands widespread changes in water use across the West. The Colorado River Basin's water storage shortage, Utah's decline to record low levels of the Great Salt Lake, and California's subsidence due to groundwater overdraft in the Central Valley are just a few of the many examples of long-term, basin-scale water scarcity demanding change in our water use.

Through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress has stepped up and invested billions of dollars in new technologies to shore up our water supplies, including large-scale water recycling and desalination. But a historic megadrought and the climate crisis are unfortunately forcing Western States and water users to reimagine how to allocate and govern water and forcing producers to be more efficient with water or make do with less.

One tool to bolster drought resilience is to retire irrigation from some agricultural lands, particularly where soils or productivity is marginal, where non-irrigated agricultural uses can sustainably contribute to an operation, or where important public benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat, watershed health and aquifer recharge, or renewable energy can be supported in a conversion from irrigated agriculture.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Voluntary Agricultural Land Repurposing Act as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Atmospheric Rivers Reconissance, Observation and Warning Act or ARROW Act. This legislation will support critical atmospheric river reconnaissance missions to improve forecasting for water managers across the west coast.

Atmospheric rivers produce between 40 to 65 percent of annual precipitation along the U.S. west coast but cause an estimated 90 percent or more of flood damage. These extreme storm events are the primary driver of drought and major flooding events impacting the entire western region, which is why the Federal Government alongside researchers and water managers support a growing Federal investment into atmospheric river reconnaissance research missions to help improve AR forecasting.

The Air Force Reserve's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, also known as Hurricane Hunters, fly specially equipped aircraft directly into the eye of a storm between 8,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level to collect valuable, real-time data that allows water managers, disaster responders, researchers, and meteorologists to better predict the impact of storm events such as ARs, hurricanes, and tropical cyclones.

The ARROW Act would formalize ongoing AR reconnaissance efforts led by the Air Force Reserve's 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, which, in consultation with NOAA, provide aircraft, personnel, and equipment to meet the AR mission requirements during the winter season in the west coast, from November through March.

The bill would direct the Air Force to work with NOAA to improve the accuracy and timeliness of west coast AR forecasts and warning services; support water management decisions and flood forecasting; and participate in the Research and Operations Partnership, which guides flight planning, to improve and expand the capabilities and effectiveness of AR Recon into the future.

The 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron is the only Department of Defense organization still flying into tropical storms and hurricanes and is a critical component of the U.S. weather forecasting apparatus.

Since fiscal year 2020, Congress has directed the 53rd to prioritize atmospheric river reconnaissance in its National Winter Storms Operations Plan. However, without formal authorization, growing AR recon research will go unmet, leaving civil authorities and military decision makers without key forecasting data to predict and respond

to AR landfall and to more effectively manage water supplies in an increasingly variable climate.

That is why we need to pass the ARROW Act, to formalize the role of the Air Force Reserve's Weather Reconnaissance Squadron as a critical part of the U.S. storm forecasting and response infrastructure.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ARROW Act as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Restore Aging Infrastructure Now RAIN Act, which I introduced today. Senator Alex Padilla is cosponsoring the legislation.

This bill has three purposes: No. 1, upgrade aging canals and other facilities owned by the Bureau of Reclamation to provide environmental and other benefits; No. 2, for the first time provide grant funding rather than loans for Reclamation facility upgrades that provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities; and No. 3, incentivize agricultural and municipal irrigation districts to participate in these projects by giving them a 15 percent discount on what they owe for repairing the aging facilities that serve them.

Let me explain these three bill purposes in more detail. First, Congress has appropriated $3.2 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to repair its aging canals, dams and other facilities. If the Federal taxpayers are spending this much money to retool Reclamation infrastructure for the needs of the 21st century, the Department of the Interior should have the authority to modify the Reclamation facilities to achieve increased environmental benefits, drinking water for disadvantaged communities, and other project benefits.

This bill applies to Reclamation ``transferred works'' facilities, which are operated and maintained by agricultural or municipal water districts. The bill authorizes Reclamation to modify these transferred works facilities when the Agency is repairing them, as long as the modifications add no more than 25 percent of the cost of the repair projects, or $25 million for repair projects costing less than $100 million.

In California, this could be particularly helpful for projects to restore major Central Valley Project canals that have lost up to 60 percent of their conveyance capacity due to subsidence. These projects are important to allow farmers to capture runoff from our increasingly concentrated winter storms and move the water to overdrafted areas where it is needed to recharge the local aquifers.

As I mentioned, the bill applies to those Reclamation facilities known as ``transferred works,'' which are operated and maintained by agricultural or irrigation water districts. In order to modify these projects when they are being repaired, the Secretary must obtain the consent of the transferred works operating entity and any individual water district that would receive less water under the modified project.

Many Bureau of Reclamation facilities were built for the sole purpose of assisting agricultural water supply. This irrigation focus is critically important in the arid West. However, as climate change stretches western water supplies, Reclamation facilities will need to serve multiple purposes as efficiently as possible.

There are many rural communities in the areas served by Reclamation facilities that have dwindling water supplies. In California, many of these communities are home to migrant farmworkers who plant and harvest the crops that Reclamation water deliveries support.

All too often, these communities' water supplies have become unreliable as groundwater tables drop, or drought reduces surface water supplies for lengthy periods. Many of these communities lack the ratepayer base and income levels to provide clean drinking water to meet their residents' basic daily needs.

In order to meet this challenge, the bill authorizes Reclamation to offer grants rather than loans when it modifies existing Reclamation facilities to provide drinking water for disadvantaged communities. Eligible communities are defined using existing precedent that their median family income must not exceed 80 percent of the statewide median family income.

In California, this could be particular helpful for the major canal repair projects which are restoring the original capacity of the Friant-Kern Canal, the California Aqueduct, and the Delta-Mendota Canal, all of which have been damaged by subsidence. Under the bill, Reclamation can now modify these upgraded canals to provide turnouts to recharge the aquifers of disadvantaged communities along the canals.

As a result, when we have wet years like this past winter, Reclamation could send some of the flood flows to help these communities boost their local water supplies.

These project modifications can be an efficient way to assist these disadvantaged communities; the canals already exist, works crews will already be mobilized to repair them, and in many cases, the canals run very near the communities that would benefit.

To make the bill work, agricultural and municipal water districts must participate in these modifications to Reclamation facility repair projects.

In many cases, the water providers will face disincentives to participate in these projects. Some providers may see their benefits reduced. All providers will have to accept significant delay in obtaining the benefits of the restoration of these projects. It will take significant time to modify the projects in a manner that the providers can accept and then to conduct environmental compliance on the proposed modification. The providers will also have to accept modified project operations that give increased priority to public benefits.

To offset these disincentives for water providers to participate in modifications to projects which increase just public benefits, the bill reduces the amount the providers have to pay for the underlying repair projects by 15 percent. The result is that each project beneficiary will pay 85 percent of the costs for the modified project that the beneficiary would otherwise have been allocated.

This provision sets up a financial incentive for water providers to support modified projects that solely increase environmental and other public benefits without increasing water diversions or other water supply benefits. Without this financial incentive, water providers might be expected to frequently oppose such modification of the projects that they rely on for water deliveries. In the case of canal restoration projects, the agricultural water districts will receive less water than they would have under the original canals at full capacity if an increased amount of the water is diverted for dedicated to disadvantaged communities or wildlife refuges. The financial incentive is important in this context to avoid generating agricultural water district opposition to project modifications to benefit disadvantaged communities and wildlife refuges.

This approach is consistent with Reclamation programs like the Title XVI and large-scale water recycling programs. These programs provide 25 percent Federal grant funding for projects that increase municipal water supplies, even where the benefiting communities are not disadvantaged. These grants are justified because the recycled water programs provide both water supply and broader public benefits by reducing pressure to divert water from often overallocated streams and rivers. With this bill, too, the modified projects merit some Federal grant funding because they provide a range of public benefits beyond just regular water supply, including potentially environmental benefits or drinking water for disadvantaged communities.

Given the inevitability of increasingly severe and lengthy droughts as the West's climate changes, it will be essential to provide incentives to collaborate on multibenefit projects that bring agricultural, environmental, and urban interests together to address the very serious challenge of maintaining sufficiently reliable water supply for all, including disadvantaged communities. This proposed legislation seeks to increase incentives for such needed collaboration.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cooking Support Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague Senator Durbin. Our bill aims to address a serious global public health and environmental issue where leadership by the United States can make a real difference.

Today, more than 2 billion people, or 30 percent of the global population, rely on ``dirty cooking,'' such as open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves that use agricultural waste, coal, dung, or other solid fuels, to cook their meals. The majority of people using these types of cookstoves and fuels are in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Exposure to smoke from these traditional cooking methods and open fires, referred to as household air pollution, can cause chronic and acute diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Alarmingly, the household air pollution caused by traditional cookstoves and open fires leads to 3.2 million premature deaths annually, including 450,000 children younger than 5

years of age, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Women and girls are disproportionately affected, as they spend hours cooking, inhaling toxic smoke, and collecting fuels.

These cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Household air pollution does not remain in the home; it contributes to global ambient air pollution. Specifically, more than half of manmade black carbon emissions come from household fuel combustion. Black carbon is a powerful short-lived climate pollutant with warming impact on the climate that is 460 to 1,500 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

These cookstoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Since 2010, the Clean Cooking Alliance, an innovative public-private partnership hosted by the United Nations Foundation, has supported the adoption of clean cooking worldwide. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions.

Our legislation reinforces our country's policy on promoting clean cookstoves and seeks to take a whole-of-government approach to address household air pollution. Specifically, the Clean Cooking Support Act would create an interagency working group, with representatives from at least six different Federal Agencies, committed to increasing access to clean cooking fuels and technologies worldwide. Our legislation explicitly spells out the role of each Federal Agency in the advancement of clean cooking as well. The Department of Energy, for instance, is tasked with research and development to spur the production of low-cost, low-emission, and high-efficiency cookstoves, while the Department of State is directed to engage in diplomatic activities across the globe to support the clean cooking and fuels sector. Finally, our would authorize funding for the U.S. Government to continue such activities through 2028 to ensure that these important efforts to prevent unnecessary illness and reduce pollution around the globe continue.

Our legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people, including the women and girls who are disproportionately affected, and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Durbin in supporting the Clean Cooking Support Act.

Madam President, one topic there is much agreement on is the benefits of work, and our laws should support those who want to work. The bill I am introducing today will change Social Security so that parents and their children will know that working will never disadvantage them in the future.

Let me explain the problem. Under current law, a child with a disability that began before age 22 may receive a Social Security benefit based on the work of a disabled, retired, or deceased parent. Often the child receives this benefit for the rest of their life. Social Security provides the benefit because the child is usually dependent on their parents for financial support. The problem is that the law regards earnings by the child above $1,470 a month as ending that dependency--even if the child is no longer able to maintain that level of work in the future. When that dependency ends, the child ceases to be eligible for the benefit from the parent. Instead, the child would receive a benefit based on their work. The benefit from the parent's work is often significantly larger than the child's own benefit. Because of this policy, parents of children with disabilities may prevent their child from working at their full potential, fearing that the work will cause the child to lose out on the larger benefit. We need to change Social Security to ensure parents and their children that working will not cause them to be worse off in the future.

To provide that assurance, I am introducing the Work Without Worry Act. The bill ensures that any individual with a disability that began before age 22 will receive the larger of the benefit from either their parent's work or the benefit from their own work. Any earnings from work--no matter how much--will not prevent the child from receiving a Social Security benefit from their parent's work as long as the child is eligible for disability insurance by the same impairment from before age 22. This legislation would give parents the assurance that their child with a disability can work without having to worry that the child will lose out on the full protections that Social Security provides.

I want to thank Kathy Holmquist, president of Pathways to Independence, Inc., in Portland, OR, who has been a leader in my State helping people with disabilities live and work with dignity. Kathy contacted me about the need for this legislation, and I appreciate her advocacy and support. Additional thanks to The Arc for the technical assistance and endorsement of the bill. The bill is also endorsed by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR, National Down Syndrome Congress, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Justice in Aging, American Association on Health and Disability, Lakeshore Foundation, Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives, Special Needs Alliance, National Association of Disability Representatives, Autism Society of America, Disability Rights Education Fund, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, CCD, Social Security Task Force. I am grateful that Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Cassidy, Budd, Sanders, Klobuchar, Markey, Warren, Whitehouse, Merkley, Murray, and Brown.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following this statement, along with two support letters.