[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E915]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    WATER RIGHTS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 1995
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, on March 3, this House approved the 
Private Property Rights Act. The purpose of the legislation is to 
reaffirm clearly that the Federal Government cannot take or diminish 
the value of private property without paying just compensation.
  Since March 3, opponents of private property rights have sought to 
discredit the legislation by claiming that it is intended to protect 
water subsidies. That is totally false.
  The Private Property Rights Act would allow a farmer to seek 
compensation if he is denied the use of part of his farm because of 
Federal wetlands or endangered species laws. The act would provide 
exactly the same protection to a farmer who loses the use of part of 
his property because his water supply is reduced or eliminated by 
Federal environmental regulation. The compensation would be based on 
the economic loss resulting from the decreased productive capacity of 
his or her farm. It would not be based on the price of the water.
  Unfortunately, the false perceptions regarding the water rights 
provisions of the Private Property Rights Act have been given 
undeserved credence by recent articles in the Wall Street Journal. I 
have written to the editor of this newspaper to point out the errors. 
Mr. Speaker, I ask that a copy of my letter to the editor of the Wall 
Street Journal be printed in the Record.
                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 1995.
     Mr. Robert L. Bartley,
     Editor, The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY.
       Dear Editor: As a conservative Republican Member of 
     Congress, I take strong exception to Mr. David Frum's March 
     13 column ``The GOP's `Takings' Sell Out.''
       Mr. Frum takes the Republican majority in the House to task 
     for allegedly opting to ``break with its free-market 
     convictions'' by including water rights provisions in the 
     Private Property Rights Act, which passed the House on March 
     3.
       Mr. Frum completely misstates both the intent and effect of 
     the Private Property Rights Act when he asserts that it 
     ``requires the federal government to compensate Western 
     Farmers and miners should it ever be tempted to ask them to 
     pay the market price for water they take from federal 
     irrigation projects.''
       The provision has nothing to do with the price of water.
       Mr. Frum is absolutely correct that ``the removal of a 
     subsidy is not an abridgment of a property right.'' The 
     Private Property Rights Act does not protect water subsidies. 
     What it does do is allow landowners to be compensated for 
     economic loss when their ``right to use or receive water'' is 
     abridged by the federal government.
       The water provisions of the legislation are specifically 
     intended to ensure that Western farmers can apply for 
     compensation when the value of their property is 
     significantly diminished by a federal action that denies them 
     the water that they are entitled to receive (with or without 
     a subsidy) under state law or a binding contract with the 
     federal government.
       Farmland in the arid West isn't worth much without water. 
     When a farmer's water supply is reduced or eliminated, the 
     productive capacity--the value--of his or her property is 
     reduced or eliminated. Throughout the West, the Endangered 
     Species Act and more recent water project ``reform'' laws are 
     being used by federal bureaucrats to deny water to 
     agriculture. This is particularly true in my state of 
     California.
       The Republican majority in Congress is not abandoning its 
     free-market convictions in the water policy arena. In fact, 
     many of us believe that the federal government should get out 
     of the water delivery business altogether by selling or 
     transferring its water projects to local public agencies.
       We would welcome Mr. Frum's thoughts on that endeavor, 
     provided he gets his facts straight first.
           Respectfully,
                                             George P. Radanovich,
                                   Member of Congress (R-CA-19th).
     

                          ____________________