[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    THE WATER SUPPLY IN SOUTH TEXAS

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we debated and passed unanimously my 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the Interior appropriations bill 
earlier this week. In my remarks I said, ``Not since the Alamo has San 
Antonio and south Texas been under siege from a faraway Government as 
it is today.''
  In fact, the Edwards aquifer is the sole water supply of our Nation's 
10th largest city, the city of San Antonio. It is also the very 
important water supply for a large area of south central Texas. It 
supplies the farmers and ranchers who create much of our food supply, 
and it is certainly important to the residents of all of the south 
central Texas counties.
  I want to tell you the catch-22 that the people of south Texas are in 
because of the Endangered Species Act. The Sierra Club filed a suit to 
protect the five endangered species living in the Edwards aquifer. They 
are a blind salamander that is about a inch-and-a-half long, another 
salamander, and two fish of about that size.
  The Edwards aquifer level is going down because we have not had 
enough rainfall in Texas this year. Only .3 of an inch of rain has 
fallen since May; normally, they receive 8 inches during this time.
  So a Federal judge has said that, under the Endangered Species Act, 
we may have to limit pumping from the Edwards aquifer. The State 
legislature, which should have the power to settle differences over the 
water supply in this area did, in fact, come to a resolution by 
debating proposals from many counties, from the ranchers and farmers, 
from the city of San Antonio, and all of the people who depend on that 
Edwards aquifer. The State legislature created a board appointed by the 
elected officials, to monitor and determine how the water would be 
allocated. However, the Justice Department decided that the solution 
put forward with all of the people involved violates the Voting Rights 
Act.
  We should permit the State and local government's solution to this 
problem to be put into effect. They do not need help from the Federal 
Government, or a Federal court to tell them what to do. But because we 
have had overregulation under the auspices of the Endangered Species 
Act, we have had Federal intervention.
  So Texans are caught between the Justice Department saying that under 
the Voting Rights Act they cannot have a local resolution to this 
problem, because board appointed by elected officials replaces some 
directly elected public officials, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
saying, as ordered by a Federal court, that they may have to limit 
pumping from the aquifer to protect Endangered Species.
  What I think we ought to be doing is saying to the State and local 
government that this is your problem. You have found a solution, a 
solution that reduces dependence on the aquifer over the long term, and 
you do not need our help and advice. Most important, you do not need 
the Federal Government to intervene by limiting the water supply of the 
tenth-largest city in America, which would have a devastating impact on 
Air Force bases and on the farmers and ranchers throughout South Texas. 
But, nevertheless, that is what we have. We are caught in a catch-22.
  The Senate passed my sense-of-the-Senate amendment to say let the 
State and local government handle this, and to say to the Secretary of 
the Interior that he should be looking for ways to minimize the 
economic damage and the damage to people in the solution to this 
problem. He should use his powers to grant an emergency incidental 
taking permit so that the local government can manage the water without 
being in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
  We have too much Federal encroachment in the name of the Endangered 
Species Act. There is a second siege on a different specie that is 
happening simultaneously. The same Fish and Wildlife Service said 
publicly that they were looking at 33 counties in Texas, over 20 
million acres, as the critical habitat of the golden-cheek warbler. 
This could limit the cutting of cedar, which is a tree that absorbs 
water in the ground. It takes the water from other crops and other uses 
that ranchers and farmers need it for. We are talking about restricting 
use of possibly 20 million acres for this one bird.
  Madam President, it is time for us to put some common sense into the 
Endangered Species Act. The Edwards aquifer was down to a low level in 
the 1950's, and we were endangering this same fountain darter then, but 
they had a commonsense solution. They restocked the fountain darters 
from another spring in the aquifer, and they put them back where they 
had been before. The fountain darters flourished. The water level came 
back up naturally, and they have been there ever since.
  That is common sense. And it also says that people matter, that 
economics matter, that jobs matter, that we have to have the ability to 
go forward with progress, with jobs, and with development, in addition 
to trying to save species in different ways. We need to consider 
putting them in safe places, by making sure that we protect them in 
another environment.
  My colleague from the State of Washington has seen the spotted owl do 
terrible economic damage to a very important industry in his State. 
Similary, in east Texas we have a woodpecker that is severely hampering 
the timber industry.
  We must keep the overly strict Endangered Species Act from hurting 
our country. It is do for reauthorization; I hope we will take it up 
soon. I hope that we will make commonsense amendments to the Endangered 
Species Act. But I also hope, Madam President, that we will have 
regulators that have common sense, that we will have regulators who say 
people are important in this process. Sometimes I think the only 
endangered species on this Earth that is not being protected is homo 
sapiens, and that is ridiculous. We must have commonsense solutions.
  So I support my colleague from the State of Washington when he says 
we must take this bill up, we must reauthorize the Endangered Species 
Act with some commonsense amendments, and that means that we must 
include economic benefit analyses. We must make people part of the 
equation, we must make jobs part of the equation, and we must look at 
protecting species by putting them somewhere else; perhaps for a short 
period of time, perhaps for a long period of time.
  But you know sometimes in nature a species does go extinct. It is 
survival of the fittest, and sometimes animals themselves kill each 
other off. Perhaps we can help, but to do that we might have to make 
more transfers.
  I am not saying that I have all the answers, but I am saying we need 
to address this problem; I am saying that the problem involves making 
sure that people are part of the equation.
  I am going to be here as soon as we can take up and consider the 
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, and I am going to try to 
make sure that the private property rights in our Constitution are 
absolutely adhered to, and that our people's property will not be taken 
without just compensation.
  I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Washington on this 
issue, and I look forward to seeing if we can put people in the 
equation once again.
  Thank you, Madam President.

                          ____________________