Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) earlier this month pulled legislation that would have authorized funds for a project in his Orange County district.

Campbell’s initial move to seek the funding raised eyebrows among fiscal conservatives because they say the bill has the distinct characteristics of an earmark.

Campbell’s bill, which seeks to amend the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to allow the secretary of the Interior Department to authorize $2.5 million for a desalination project in Dana Point, Calif., would have effectively circumvented the government’s competitive bidding process, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“[Campbell’s provision] certainly strikes us as an earmark,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Tax Payers for Common Sense. “[His] bill inserts a provision that at the end of the day [that allocates] $2.5 million to a Dana Point desalinization facility…it’s clearly authorizing funding and subverting the process.”

Sources on and off Capitol Hill alerted The Hill to Campbell’s bill, complaining of a disconnect between the lawmaker’s words and actions.

Campbell’s legislation, cosponsored by Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Gary Miller (R-Calif.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Ed Royce (R-Calif.), raises the murky question of what constitutes an earmark. Most traditional earmarks are not introduced as freestanding bills like the Campbell measure, which went through the normal committee vetting process. According to House rules, the Campbell bill is not an earmark – as stipulated in the House report that accompanies the legislation.

Campbell contended that the bill is not an earmark and noted that he has told constituents pushing for the project that he would not ask for an earmark for them.