[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H750-H757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONSTRUCTED WATER CONVEYANCES REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2567) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act relating to standards for constructed water 
conveyances.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2567

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Constructed Water 
     Conveyances Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTED WATER CONVEYANCES.

       Section 303(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
       ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercised jurisdiction 
     over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards 
     under this section, the State shall consider any water 
     quality impacts resulting from any return flow from a 
     constructed water conveyance to navigable waters and the need 
     to protect downstream uses and may consider the following:
       ``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in 
     a conveyance system.
       ``(II) Management practices necessary to maintain the 
     conveyance system.
       ``(III) Any State or regional water resources management 
     and water conservation plans.
       ``(IV) The intended purposes for the constructed 
     conveyance.
       ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water 
     quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall 
     not be required to establish recreational, aquatic life, or 
     fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable or the uses interfere with 
     the intended purposes of the conveyance system.
       ``(iii) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed to require a State to 
     exercise jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances in 
     establishing standards or to prohibit a State from 
     considering any relevant factor in establishing standards or 
     from establishing any relevant use.
       ``(iv) Constructed water conveyances defined.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `constructed water conveyance' means a 
     manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of 
     transporting water for agricultural purposes or municipal and 
     industrial water supply purposes in a waterway that is not 
     and never was a natural waterway.''.


           Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Constructed Water 
     Conveyances Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTED WATER CONVEYANCES.

       Section 303(c)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
       ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises jurisdiction 
     over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards 
     under this section, the State shall consider any water 
     quality impacts resulting from any return flow from a 
     constructed water conveyance to navigable waters and the need 
     to protect downstream uses and may consider the following:
       ``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in 
     a conveyance system.
       ``(II) Management practices necessary to maintain the 
     conveyance system.
       ``(III) Any State or regional water resources management 
     and water conservation plans.
       ``(IV) The intended purposes for the constructed 
     conveyance.
       ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water 
     quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall 
     not be required to establish recreational, aquatic life, or 
     fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable or the uses interfere with 
     the intended purposes of the conveyance system.
       ``(iii) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed to require a State to 
     exercise jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances in 
     establishing standards or to prohibit a State from 
     considering any relevant factor in establishing standards or 
     from establishing any relevant use.
       ``(iv) Constructed water conveyances defined.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `constructed water conveyance' means a 
     manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of 
     transporting water for agricultural purposes or municipal and 
     industrial water supply purposes in a waterway that is not 
     and never was a natural waterway.''.

  Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the committee amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Borski] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2567, the Constructed Water 
Conveyances Reform Act. This correction day bill, which is the first of 
1996, fixes a specific problem under the Clean Water Act that will 
benefit State and local officials and agricultural interests and 
continue, at the same time, to protect our Nation's waters.
  It is also the first piece of legislation for the House to consider 
this year under the new constraints imposed by the Unfunded Mandate 
Reform Act of 1995. This bill not only passes the test of not imposing 
unfunded Federal mandates, it passes it with flying colors. In fact, 
the Congressional Budget Office finds that this bill is likely to 
reduce State and local costs by interjecting flexibility to avoid 
unnecessary water use designations.
  This legislation amends the Clean Water Act to allow States greater 
flexibility in setting water quality standards for so-called 
constructed water conveyances; that is, manmade drains, canals, and 
other conduits to transport water for agricultural and water supply 
purposes.
  The bill is essentially the same as provisions in the House-passed 
clean water bill, and is based on testimony gathered from several 
hearings.
  It is before us today by a bipartisan coalition of Members; and, 
indeed, there are nine original cosponsors, five Republicans, four 
Democrats. So it is totally bipartisan.
  Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure responded by 
reporting the bill on December 21, 1995. I particularly want to commend 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking Democrat of 
the Committee on Transportation and infrastructure, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert], the chairman of the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Borski], the ranking Democrat on the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee. They all cooperated in putting together a very reasonable 
package.
  I also would be quite remiss if I did not commend and congratulate 
the primary sponsors of the bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] along with 
others who have continued to press for this legislation. 

[[Page H751]]

  The bill fixes a problem, and that is EPA's overly stringent 
interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act as it applies 
to these manmade water conveyances. It fixes the problem without 
weakening the act. Indeed, the bill helps make the Clean Water Act even 
more acceptable to the public by making it more flexible and more 
realistic.
  Over the years certain manmade ditches and canals, particularly in 
the arid Western States, have been designated as navigable waters that 
must be regulated under the Clean Water Act. States, in turn, must then 
establish water quality standards for the manmade canals that in some 
cases presume that they will be used for fishing, swimming, or even 
drinking.
  Now, it does not make any sense to regulate an agricultural drainage 
canal or a ditch the same way that you quite properly would regulate a 
pristine lake or a navigable river. It simply does not make sense to 
put farmers and municipal and State water officials in a regulatory 
straitjacket.
  So this legislation fixes that problem, Mr. Speaker. For example, 
rice growers in California have manmade ditches and drains which help 
remove excess water from the fields. It does not make sense to treat 
the water before it enters the drains as if it were entering a swimming 
hole or a lake. Rice and cotton and other commodity growers in other 
States, such as Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, and Colorado have cited 
similar problems.

  And what is the cost of this overregulation? An EPA mandated use 
attainability analysis alone, this is simply the analysis, could cost 
several hundred thousand dollars. For example, the municipal water 
officials in Arizona tell us that the canals transporting raw water to 
drinking water treatment plants should not be subject to water quality 
standards designed for water bodies that people swim in and fish in and 
drink from.
  Fro Phoenix alone, one city, the cost of these added, unnecessary 
requirements would be $66 million. In addition, annual maintenance 
costs would be $12 million. That is over 25 times their current annual 
cost.
  This needs to be fixed and that is only one city, so you can 
extrapolate it to see what the overall cost would be for the American 
people.

                              {time}  1430

  In an effort to accommodate the minority and to reflect comments from 
EPA, we have made several changes to the bill that was introduced, and 
those changes are described in detail in the committee report.
  We have clarified that nothing in this bill prevents a State from 
considering any relevant factors or uses in setting standards. In other 
words, nothing, absolutely nothing, prevents States from doing what 
they need to do.
  We have revised provisions so that the States are authorized, not 
mandated, to consider certain factors and uses.
  Among the many supporters of this legislation are included the 
Western Governors Association, the Western States Water Council, the 
Western Coalition for Arid States, the National Water Resources 
Association, the Western Growers Association, the California rice 
industry, the USA Rice Federation and the city of Phoenix, AZ. This is 
a bipartisan bill, supported by Members across the country, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2567, the Constructed 
Water Conveyances Reform Act. I particularly want to commend my 
California colleagues, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Matsui, and Mr. Condit, who have 
worked to get this bill onto the House floor today.
  We have worked with them and with the majority to develop a bill that 
will meet the specific needs of the districts represented by my 
California colleagues while assuring protection of human health and the 
environment. It deserves the approval of the House.
  When H.R. 2567 was introduced, I was concerned that it was too broad 
and that it lacked clear standards for States to use in setting 
designated uses for constructed water conveyances. However, the 
chairman was willing to work in a bipartisan manner to modify the bill, 
and to include explanatory language in the committee report which 
alleviated most of my concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constructed Water Conveyances Reform Act reflects 
the desire of owners of constructed water conveyance systems to have 
greater flexibility in how the standards of the Clean Water Act apply 
to those conveyances. It has been modified to assure that this 
flexibility is tempered with the responsibility to take reasonable, 
affordable measures to assure protection of water quality.
  Obviously there may be situations where the fishable and swimmable 
standards applicable to natural waterways would not be appropriate for 
constructed waterways. However, we should not automatically assume that 
all constructed conveyance systems would be subject to lower standards 
under this bill. There must be some meaningful interference with the 
authorized purposes of the conveyance to justify any lesser level of 
protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 2567 will allow States the 
flexibility which they seek while assuring protection of human health 
and the environment. I thank the chairman for his willingness to work 
in a bipartisan manner to address my concerns about the bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the 
openness that has been evident all through the consideration of this 
bill. It is noncontroversial now. As a matter of fact, the provisions 
of this bill were included in the committee bill, H.R. 961, and the 
substitute that my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] 
and I offered to that.
  Frankly, I wish the bill was not necessary, but the truth is there 
are times when the Clean Water Act is interpreted and applied too 
narrowly and the views of State and local water officials are not 
adequately taken into account. This bill improves the Clean Water Act 
and the flexibility and responsiveness to site-specific circumstances, 
while keeping in place all the successes and important goals of the 
Act.
  Because certain so-called constructed water conveyances are 
interpreted to be navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, States 
are required to set water quality standards for the conveyances. The 
problem is that in some situations the standards are set with the 
automatic assumption that the ditches or drains or canals will be used 
for swimming or fishing or drinking. This can lead to, as we understand 
it, very costly and unnecessary requirements.
  In response, the bill makes clear that States do not automatically 
have to establish standards based on recreational, aquatic, or fish 
consumption uses for these constructed water conveyances. Nothing in 
the bill, however, prevents a State from doing so if it wants.
  So we would say to the States, ``If you want to do it, you can do it. 
We're not going to prevent you from doing it.'' Also, nothing in the 
bill exempts constructed water conveyances from regulation under the 
act.
  The committee added additional safeguards and clarifications to the 
introduced bill and worked with all interests to reach a reasonable 
compromise. I want to emphasize that: worked with all interests to 
reach a reasonable compromise.
  No one can say this bill weakens the Clean Water Act. Boy, I would 
not be identified with anything that would weaken the Clean Water Act. 
It simply gives State officials more flexibility to take into account 
specific situations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I want to thank the 
chairman for the leadership that he has provided and for the 
opportunity he has afforded me to work with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I would invite those Members who have not done so, to 
visit the committee room and witness the new portrait of our chairman. 
It is a magnificent work of art.

[[Page H752]]

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the original sponsor of this 
bill.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking 
Member Oberstar for helping move H.R. 2567, the Water Conveyance Reform 
Act of 1995, expeditiously through the committee and to the House floor 
today.
  Without your leadership and bipartisan effort, none of this could be 
accomplished.
  I also want to thank the corrections day advisory task force for 
their understanding of the need for this legislation and the support it 
deserves.
  Basically, the problem exists with EPA's interpretation of the Clean 
Water Act.
  The EPA has interpreted constructed water conveyance facilities to be 
waters of the United States and therefore subject to the same Clean 
Water Act standards as California's most pristine mountain streams.
  In the case of California rice, many facilities proposed for 
regulations were specifically constructed as part of the tremendous and 
widely acclaimed successful effort to keep agricultural drain water out 
of the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
  Basically my bill is designed to easily rectify this situation by 
amending the Clean Water Act to make it clear that no State need 
regulate water within a constructed conveyance facility except to 
ensure the facility's continued use for the purpose for which it was 
constructed; and to prevent water quality problems in downstream 
natural waterways.
  I firmly believe this is a unique opportunity to address a problem 
that has confronted the rice industry for a couple of years and 
portends to turn into a significant economic and environmental hardship 
for the Central Valley if not repaired.
  Lastly, I want to especially point out Congressman Matsui and 
Congressman Fazio for their efforts with this bill and also thank 
Members who cosponsored H.R. 2567.
  In a time when there has been limited bipartisan effort on 
legislation, the Constructed Water Conveyance Reform Act of 1995 truly 
demonstrates we can work together to find solutions to real problems.
  I would ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to be certain that I also 
acknowledge the tremendous contribution to this effort of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio]. We certainly very much appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Mrs. Seastrand], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This bill 
is a commonsense reform to the Clean Water Act, it has significant 
bipartisan support and it is a necessary amendment and I thank Mr. 
Condit and Shuster for their leadership in bringing it to the House 
floor.
  It must be stressed that when the original Clean Water Act was 
constructed it was designed to require States to establish water 
quality standards for navigable waters used for fishing, swimming, or 
water supply purposes. This amendment to the act gives States the 
authority rather than the Federal Government to regulate facilities 
constructed to transport water for municipal, agricultural, or 
industrial purposes which were never meant to support recreation or 
aquatic life.
  This legislation will realize savings for U.S. EPA. The agency will 
no longer have to review and approve State's plans for water conveyance 
systems. Savings will also be seen at the State level in that they will 
no longer be mandated to oversee the implementation of constructed 
conveyance facilities. These total more than 6,300 in central 
California that have a combined excess of 20,000 miles. Similarly, the 
correction will save State and local governments money so they will not 
be forced to develop control plans for constructed conveyances or 
develop implementation plans. Finally, private citizens will see a 
reduced cost for their water supply or at least a slowing in the rate 
of increase.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Mr. Condit and Mr. Shuster for 
their hard work on this sound legislation which I wholeheartedly 
support.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], a prime sponsor of the 
legislation before us.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the 
gentlemen from Pennsylvania and the gentlemen from Minnesota and New 
York for helping those of us in the West solve a problem. This is 
something that means a lot to us in Nevada, Arizona, and California 
where we have many thousands of miles of canals, of water conveyances 
constructed largely on private property maintained by reclamation 
districts, irrigation districts that are basically made up of the 
property owners who pool their resources to make it possible for us to 
evacuate these conveyances into streams and rivers in a way that is 
most beneficial for clean water.
  But we did not need the regulation of EPA and the Clean Water Act, 
and this bill makes clear we do not need it. The State of California, 
for example, and I believe the State of Arizona as well, maintained 
that they needed to follow a rigorous policy of enforcing the Clean 
Water Act in these private drainage canals because of the Federal 
requirements. We make it clear that if any further action is taken on 
this level, it will be at the requirement and the behest of the State 
and local government.
  As has already been indicated, this is a great potential savings not 
only to EPA and to the State water quality agencies and entities, 
regional as well as statewide, but most of all to the local landowners 
who have been in most cases already in the lead in trying to handle the 
environmental problems that they encounter in their crop patterns, in 
their rice industry or in the cotton industry, as the case may be. They 
deserve the attention of the administration, they have gotten it from 
the President, and even though the administration indicates they have 
some work they want to see done on this bill in the Senate, I think 
they have indicated that they understand the problem needs to be 
addressed and they are willing to work with us to make sure that it 
will be before the end of this Congress.
  Legislation very similar to this was included in the Clean Water Act 
that passed this House. This problem is of such a magnitude that the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Condit, along with Mr. Matsui and 
myself, felt it needed to come up on the Corrections Day occasion. I 
appreciate the leadership he has provided. I appreciate the fact that 
we could bring it here and attempt to solve this problem, which stands 
out from others, in a way that will not require us to come to the 
conclusion of the Clean Water Act fix which remains controversial and 
may yet fail to get to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for allowing 
this legislation to come to the floor. It means a great deal to 
agriculture in my district. They will be very gratified to see that 
reason has prevailed here in Washington on something that makes so much 
sense to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I include my statement on this legislation for the 
Record, as follows:
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make my colleagues aware of a serious problem 
in my district in California. Currently, the Clean Water Act is being 
applied somewhat capriciously to agricultural drainage conveyances. One 
of the legitimate concerns in my community is that when we apply 
Federal regulations we do so with good intentions but sometime with a 
bad outcome. In this case, the Government--in its effort to protect the 
water quality of natural waterways--is extending its reach to man-made 
systems that are designed to protect against contamination in the 
natural waterways to which these facilities ultimately drain.
  Several months ago President Clinton visited the State of California 
and met with growers including constituents from my area. They conveyed 
to the President how burdensome this expansion of the Clean Water Act 
was becoming to California agriculture. President Clinton agreed. It 
was clearly not the intent of the Clean Water Act to try and bring 
agriculture drainage systems up to the standards applied to pristine 
mountain streams.
  I have a large majority of rice growers in my area and they are 
committed to making progress in protecting the environment. The 
difficulty they face is when they are forced to meet unreasonable 
measures that do nothing to meet that goal.

[[Page H753]]

  I appreciate President Clinton's support for this clarification. I 
understand that the Administration may have some concerns regarding the 
bill's expansion to include industrial and municipal conveyances. I 
will do everything I can to see that these concerns are addressed in 
the Senate. It is critical, however, that this measure move forward and 
that the agriculture industry in my State be reassured that Congress is 
willing and able to address this problem.
  I strongly ask my colleagues' support.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of H.R. 
2567 our 12th corrections day bill and the first bill of the 2d session 
of the 104th Congress. I congratulate Chairman Shuster for moving this 
legislation so quickly to the floor. I also congratulate Mr. Condit for 
introducing this bill.
  In only 5 months time the House has considered 11 bills under this 
calendar and passed all of them. The Senate has sent three of those 
bills to the President for signature. I believe we are compiling a 
record of success and that the corrections calendar will become heavily 
relied upon by the House as a way to fix past errors.
  The American people are demanding a more responsive Government, and 
corrections day is a key part of delivering on their demands.
  On the floor today, we again have a prime example of the need for the 
corrections day process. Here we have the EPA interpreting the Clean 
Water Act to require the State of California to consider irrigation 
ditches as waters of the United States, and, therefore, subject to the 
same Clean Water Act standards as the most pristine mountain streams. 
Everyone can recognize this as being ridiculous but a strict reading of 
the act results in this problem.
  The only reasonable solution is for Congress to step in and make the 
much needed change. Mr. Condit's bill was introduced only a couple of 
months ago and already we have it here on the House floor. I want to 
recognize Chairman Shuster for his hard work in getting this bill to 
the floor in such short order. I am hopeful that the other body will 
recognize the need for quick action and send this bill to the President 
without delay.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation and when I say that, when I say in opposition, I say in 
opposition in its current form because I believe the bill, as it 
currently is written, is overly broad and allows an exemption far 
greater than that that is necessary.
  I also want to recognize the work of my colleagues from California, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Matsui], for the attention they have given this problem to address what 
has been considered a very legitimate problem in California with 
respect to the use of these facilities.
  My concern with this legislation is that in fact what we now see is 
that this use of these facilities will override, should the State so 
decide, will override the public health and safety and environmental 
quality. These facilities, in many instances, are used to discharge 
agricultural water from the lands, as my colleagues have pointed out, 
but I would also suggest to you that these facilities are being used 
for a multiple of other purposes, including fish and wildlife and 
water-based recreation contact and noncontact use of these waters. Some 
of these facilities are rather large and, in fact, in the State of 
California now in the Delta-Mendota Canal and the California aqueduct 
dedicated under the Clean Water Act, including contact and noncontact 
recreation, warm-water fish and wildlife habitat and used by thousands 
of people over the year for sport fishing. In southern California, 
water from the Colorado River flows into many canals serving the Palo 
Verde irrigation district, Imperial irrigation district, and, again, 
fishing and contact use of the water is made by other than agricultural 
interests.

  The Imperial irrigation district and in several locations in Texas 
near the border with Mexico, low-income people, unfortunately, in this 
country live alongside these irrigation canals and depend upon them for 
subsistence fishing, for bathing and even drinking supplies because of 
the of the tragic situations they find themselves in with respect to 
housing conditions in those areas.
  In the Palo Verde Basin, a significant amount of sport fishing takes 
place in the Palo Verde Outfall Dam. Some swimming and boating also 
occurs here.
  The point is this. Here, Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation, and I 
think the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] already mentioned it, 
the administration is continuing negotiations. I would hope this 
legislation could be more narrowly drawn to protect those public health 
and safety issues that can occur under the legislation as currently 
drafted.
  The EPA memorandum follows:
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                              San Francisco, CA, January 18, 1996.
     Subject: Status of Corrections Day Bill HR 2567 Constructed 
         Water Conveyance Reform Act of 1995.
     From: Catherine Roberts, Congressional Liaison Officer.
     To: Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator.
       The Corrections Day bill HR 2567 introduced by 
     Representative Gary Condit and co-sponsored by 
     Representatives Robert Matsui and Vic Fazio was passed by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by voice vote 
     on December 14, 1995. Headquarters expects the bill to move 
     to the House floor as soon as January 23, 1996 although it is 
     possible that a delay will occur until the next Corrections 
     Day.
       The original purpose of the bill as described by 
     Representative Condit's staff was to provide relief to the 
     rice industry from the designation of uses for irrigation 
     return flows. It was on this basis that Representatives Fazio 
     and Matsui were persuaded to be co-sponsors although Mr. 
     Fazio withheld support until a few days before Committee mark 
     up of the bill. However, the Committee had entirely different 
     intentions than the ones expressed by the California 
     sponsors. Indeed, it became evident that the Committee, 
     Chaired by Representative Bud Shuster (R-PA), wished to 
     provide relief to any state nationwide with manmade/
     constructed water conveyances for agriculture, municipal and 
     industrial purposes.
       Historically, Region 9, at the request of Senator Harry 
     Reid during the 103rd Congress, participated in a working 
     group comprised of arid west states to develop amendments to 
     provide flexibility in the Clean Water Act for states in the 
     Arid West. The proposed amendments were originally designed 
     for a more broad set of physical characteristics such as 
     ephemeral streams in the arid west than just constructed 
     water conveyances. Nevertheless these types of conveyances 
     were recognized in a subsection of the amendments and were 
     given relief under specific criteria. These amendments were 
     included in the Clean Water Act reauthorization and passed by 
     the Senate in the summer of 1994. In the House of 
     Representatives, the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act 
     failed to emerge from the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. Arid west amendments were subsequently 
     included in HR961 passed by the House during the first 
     session of the 104th Congress but the language and intent 
     was changed significantly from the original Reid 
     amendment.
       The significance of the changes made to the original 
     language on constructed water conveyances were associated 
     with: (1) broadening applicability to the whole country 
     instead of limiting it to the arid west; (2) broadening the 
     definition of constructed conveyance and; (3) the addition of 
     a clause describing relevant uses. These changes were made in 
     HR961 and then extended further in HR2567. Representative 
     Condit's office initially did not realize that HR2567 had 
     been taken out of the arid west context and thus made 
     relevant nationwide. This issue was immediately raised by 
     Region 9 and was recognized by Mr. Condit's staff as needing 
     further discussion. However, we were to discover that the 
     majority staff on the Committee were not receptive to the 
     limitation to arid west states. During our conference calls 
     with Committee staff, it was expressed that it was their 
     intention to retain the original language in HR961 since it 
     had already passed the House however the Committee markup 
     resulted in expanding the language further and well beyond 
     the carefully phrased language in the original Reid Bill.
       The passage of this bill is a high priority for Mr. Condit 
     for several reasons not least of which is that a 
     ``commitment'' was made to the rice industry President 
     Clinton's Central Valley visit regarding constructed water 
     conveyances. The substance of this discussion has been 
     narrowly summarized as providing relief through a 
     Correction's Day Bill. The efforts of the WMD and the State 
     of California to work with the rice industry on their 
     concerns has been seriously overlooked by the bill's co-
     sponsors. We believe that the 

[[Page H754]]
     Clean Water Act already provides the flexibility to address their 
     concerns and indeed exemptions have been made by the State.
       The debate on this bill has been further complicated by the 
     very different concerns raised by the state of Arizona. 
     Arizona actively supports the bill and is in the process of 
     trying to dedesignate uses for some of their constructed 
     water conveyances. It appears that the preferred approach is 
     to carve out permanent legislative relief rather that working 
     within the parameters of the existing CWA. Furthermore, the 
     efforts of EPA staff to work with the various stakeholders 
     whether from Colorado or California through a consensus 
     process is being forfeited to political expediency.
       At this point HQ is recommending to OMB that the bill as 
     written be vetoed by the President. The recommendation is 
     based on a number of concerns that were presented to OMB as 
     official Agency comments (attachment). In essence, HQ stated 
     that HR2567 would exempt States from establishing standards 
     for constructed water conveyances, specifically for the 
     adoption of standards for recreation, aquatic life and fish 
     consumption. HQ comments further state that the purpose of 
     the water conveyance system is given a higher priority than 
     the protection of human health and the environment. There are 
     a significant number of water bodies defined as waters of 
     United States that could be impacted by HR2567 and we have 
     provided a preliminary list of these areas for HDQ and the 
     House Minority staff (attachment). Unfortunately, HQ has very 
     limited information on impacts to waters in Regions other 
     than Region 9 and 6.
       The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is 
     chaired by Bill Shuster (R-PA) who will be taking the lead 
     along with Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) on the floor debate. It 
     is expected that the argument for passage will be a 
     simplistic reference to this bill as being part of the 
     already passed HR961. The Region 9 Members on this Committee 
     are as follows: Bill Baker (R), Jay Kim (R), Steve Horn (R), 
     Andrea Seastrand (R) and Bob Filner (D). In addition, 
     Representatives Condit, Fazio and Matsui will also be there 
     to encourage their colleagues to vote for a bill that will 
     give relief for the rice industry. I have included for your 
     review a copy of HR2567, the original Reid amendments, Region 
     8 comments and a statement by Representative James Oberstar 
     (D-MN) the ranking minority Member on the Committee 
     (attachment).
       If you have any questions or need further assistance please 
     let me know at x1560.
       Attachments.


                       epa comments on h.r. 2567

       EPA believes that H.R. 2567, relating to standards for 
     constructed water conveyances within the context of the Clean 
     Water Act (CWA), is unnecessary. Current CWA authority 
     already provides the necessary flexibility to address 
     standards for constructed water conveyances.
       H.R. 2567 would:
       Exempt States from establishing standards of any kind for 
     constructed water conveyances and
       Exempt States (when they do develop standards for 
     constructed water conveyances) from adopting recreation, 
     aquatic life, fish consumption uses if these uses ``are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the 
     authorized uses of the conveyance system.''
       This language essentially sets the water conveyance use 
     above the protection of human health and the environment and 
     lacks a mechanism to ensure that the basic water quality 
     protections of the CWA, even if existing, are maintained. 
     Such categorical exclusions are inappropriate. Site-specific 
     analyses and use attainability analyses under current 
     authority and implementing regulations can and should be 
     conducted to determine the appropriate requirements for water 
     conveyance systems on a case-by-case basis.
       Because of the blanket exclusion in H.R. 2567 for all water 
     conveyances anywhere in the country, this bill could have 
     resulting adverse impacts on water quality affecting not only 
     water quality in arid/semi-arid areas, but a substantial 
     number of water bodies nation-wide. In addition the H.R. 2567 
     does not anticipate any additional impacts due to new, non-
     agricultural development which could add stormwater discharge 
     to the conveyance and result in increased flows during storm 
     events (see suggested changes in (C)(i)(II) below).
       Whether a use is existing or not does not mean that it is 
     not attainable (see #2 above). Also, the meaning of 
     ``reasonably foreseeable'' should be clearly defined.
       The statutory construction provision in subsection (iii) 
     would allow States to avoid exercising jurisdiction over 
     constructed conveyances at all, although they may be 
     supporting at least limited aquatic life, wildlife or 
     irrigation uses, clearly avoiding the goals of the Act set 
     out in Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c). Since many of the 
     conveyances are functionally perennial rivers, the definition 
     of constructed water conveyance is similarly flawed.
       If this bill were to go forward we offer the following 
     suggested changes (If however, the intent of this bill 
     expands to include municipal water conveyances, we would need 
     to reevaluate the specific language to be protective of human 
     health and the environment.):
       Suggested changes are in italics deleted matter in bold 
     brackets:
       Section 1. Arid West Constructed Water Conveyances
       (C) Standards for Arid West constructed water conveyances.
       (i) Relevant Factors.--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any [return] 
     flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters 
     and the need to protect hydrologic integrity at the 
     confluence with navigable waters, as well as downstream 
     [users] uses.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (ii) Relevant Uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water 
     quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall 
     not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or 
     fish consumption uses for such systems it the uses are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable [or] and such uses 
     unreasonably impede the authorized [uses] purposes of the 
     conveyance system.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (iv) Constructed Water Conveyances Defined.--In this 
     subparagraph, the term `constructed water conveyance' means a 
     manmade agricultural drainage water transport system....''
       (v) Arid West defined.--In this subparagraph, the term 
     ``Arid West'' means an area in the western portion of the 
     United States that typically receives less than fifteen 
     inches of rain on an annual basis.

         or

       (v) Arid West defined.--In this subparagraph, the term 
     ``Arid West'' means an area in the western portion of the 
     United States west of the 100th meridian.

       In summary, EPA believes that the legislation is 
     unnecessary, that the flexibility contained in the CWA 
     currently gives States the functional equivalent of this 
     bill; and that a case-by-case analysis is the way to 
     determine which conveyances deserve the exclusions provided 
     in H.R. 2567.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time, 
also for his hard work on this important issue.
  I turn to this side of the aisle and see my very good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who has worked so hard on the 
same.
  Mr. Speaker, one of many issues addressed here, and I have risen on 
many occasions to note that what this entire exercise should be all 
about, is what is reasonable, what makes sense, and I believe, as part 
of the Corrections Day, this piece of legislation is eminently 
reasonable because it resolves a problem that agricultural interests 
and endeavors have experienced with the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 2567 will modify the way the Clean Water Act applies to 
constructed agricultural drains, recognizing that this law was never 
intended to bring the quality of agricultural runoff to the level of a 
pristine stream.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2567. I urge the adoption of 
this commonsense legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, I pause again and make 
note of the commonsense consensus in this Chamber on this act, on this 
corrections exercise.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, and, in fact, I welcome him back 
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2567, 
the Constructed Water Conveyances Reform Act of 1995.
  This legislation, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], corrects the improper application of the Clean 
Water Act to constructed water systems. Constructed water systems are 
otherwise known as ditches and canals.
  It clearly is the intent of Congress to cover a wide array of natural 
waters or water bodies in establishing water quality standards. 
However, it was not Congress' intent to subject constructed water 
systems to the act's very strict requirements.
  Earlier this session, the body passed H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act 
Amendments of 1995, to provide greater flexibility to the States in 
setting water quality standards. This legislation contains similar 
provisions allowing the States to recognize the special features and 
purposes of agricultural water conveyances. Under this bill, the State 
will be allowed to make distinction between a manmade water transport 
system and a constructed water body used for recreation, aquatic life 
or fish consumption, and establish appropriate 

[[Page H755]]
standards. This legislation is critical for arid States such as 
California and Arizona, where farmers must construct manmade waterways 
and irrigation canals in order to support agricultural industry.
  Mr. Speaker, lastly, I would like to note that this is the first 
piece of legislation that would fall into the new unfunded mandate law 
passed and signed into law last year, a bill also authored by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. The supporters of this 
legislation are proud to point out CBO has certified H.R. 2567 would 
actually reduce costs to States because it would give States greater 
flexibility when establishing water quality standards for constructed 
water conveyances.
  This is a win for the States. This is an effort to inject commonsense 
reform into the application of a very important act. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about continued efforts 
to use the Corrections Day Calendar for exceptions to the Clean Water 
Act, particularly with regard to the overall goal of the act of 
achieving fishable and swimmable waters.
  As we know, water bodies are in no way isolated. They are all part of 
the cycle.
  I am concerned, and I believe a lot of other people who swim, boat, 
and fish would be concerned, if water in water conveyances were being 
held up to a lesser standard than any river, lake, or stream, because 
one is not mutually exclusive of the other.
  I share the concern of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], 
which I believe is also shared by the administration, that this bill 
will have a broader impact than is necessary and that, as a result, the 
negative impacts of the legislation will be greater than anticipated by 
its sponsors. No one can know the impact that relaxing standards on all 
conveyances will have on water quality overall, and substandard water 
that may flow from a conveyance into navigable waters will have a 
varying degree of impact over time.
  However, this impact will be cumulative, and receiving water will in 
some ways degrade. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that maintaining 
certain water quality standards for conveyances will in no way 
interfere with the intended purposes of conveyance systems. It will, 
however, ensure the safety of those that fish and swim in our Nation's 
waters, as well as protect invaluable aquatic habitat.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do urge opposition to the bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished ranking member who, in just 
a short few months, has done such an outstanding job on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I compliment our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for the splendid job he 
continues to do as our voice on the Subcommittee on Water Resources. I 
want to express my appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert], chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, for their 
cooperative spirit as we worked our way through this legislation.
  Initially, as introduced, I was opposed to H.R. 2567. However, due to 
the willingness of the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], of 
the subcommittee, to work with us both in making substantive changes in 
the language of the bill and in committee report language to further 
clarify bill language, we have, I feel, addressed our concerns, 
certainly the concerns that we have had on this side of the aisle, and 
those that the administration had, and, as a result, I do not oppose 
its passage. I am not for it, but I do not oppose it.
  What really troubles me about where we are today and what we are 
doing today, is that for the second time in this Congress, our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is on the floor with a 
bill considering an item under corrections day procedure on an issue 
where there is either nothing or relatively little to correct or 
something that is in the process of being corrected by the 
administration. We are here considering a bill which would more 
appropriately and more properly be considered under one of the other 
calendars of the House, either the Union Calendar, where there would be 
general debate and an open amendment process or on the Suspension 
Calendar, where an individual Member would have more leverage to 
express their concerns and have those concerns addressed because the 
bill has to pass by, we know, two-thirds on the Suspension Calendar.
  I just viscerally oppose this corrections day process. In all of my 
32-years' experience in the House, I think this is a very dangerous 
deviation from long-established process that protects interests that 
otherwise do not have an adequate voice.
  Now, I know corrections day was intended to address inappropriate 
laws or laws that people called dumb or regulations that are 
inappropriate or where there is a consensus that they ought to be 
corrected. Bills under this calendar were supposed to be narrow 
in scope, to address an immediate need that could not await 
reauthorization legislation. Well, that is the framework within which 
this corrections day was spelled out in the advisory to House Members 
last year.

  There is no reason this particular bill could not await the Clean 
Water Act reauthorization. In fact, a similar provision was included in 
H.R. 961. As we have already heard today, the bill is not 
noncontroversial.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], had very 
serious objections to it. The administration has expressed further 
reservations which they hope to have addressed when the bill reaches 
the Senate. If they are not addressed there, I suspect the 
administration would be opposed to the bill.
  Rather than making a limited technical amendment, the bill has far-
reaching policy implications.
  Now, the worst of those, fortunately and wisely, and I think in a 
very timely fashion, was addressed by the majority in our process of 
negotiation, and, thank goodness, this bill came through this committee 
and not through some other committee where things are very contentious. 
We might have something very lopsided on the floor. I think we have a 
bill that has a reasoned approach to this problem.
  But, again, my objection is on the basis of process. There is no 
opportunity for amendment to this bill. There is no opportunity for 
votes on such amendments, and I think that we ought to have an issue of 
this magnitude considered under a process where it could be open to 
amendment.
  If there is going to be a continuation of this corrections day 
procedure, it ought to be limited much more narrowly than it has been 
in the two instances arising out of our committee and in the 10 other 
instances of other bills that have been considered so far in this 
Congress.
  I expressed concerns during our committee markup that the bill would 
allow States to forgo protection of human health and the environment in 
order instead to accommodate industrial, agricultural, and municipal 
interests who want to save money.

                              {time}  1500

  Even in situations where it would be possible to strike a reasonable 
balance that would simultaneously accommodate multiple uses of a 
constructed water body and protect human health. I think we have to be 
sensitive, regardless of who owns this body of water, that all these 
waters eventually are in the public domain. There are many constructed 
water bodies that States have designated for uses both for irrigation, 
agriculture drainage, and for recreation, aquatic life, and for 
fisheries. Experience has shown us that we can use water bodies wisely, 
in a multiple-use way, for a wide range of purposes, for swimming, for 
example, and for irrigation, but also protect those individual multiple 
uses.
  We should not obstruct our ability to work in the normal legislative 
process to address these issues in the normal legislative way, open to 
amendment, open to broad and extensive debate and 

[[Page H756]]
discussion, and to address, particularly in the environment, 
particularly in this area, of staying on course, to achieve the 
objective of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to make our waters fishable 
and swimmable.
  Mr. Speaker, corrections day was to address inappropriate or dumb 
laws or regulations about which there would be little controversy. 
Corrections bills are supposed to be ``narrow in scope'' and to 
``address an immediate need which cannot await reauthorization * * * 
legislation.'' These are requirements spelled out by the Corrections 
Day Advisory Group in its letter to House Members last summer.
  There is no reason this bill could not await Clean Water Act 
reauthorization, especially in view of the fact that a similar 
provision was included in H.R. 961. Moreover, this bill is not 
noncontroversial, and is not limited to a specific problem. Rather than 
making a limited technical amendment, this bill has far-reaching policy 
implications. Prior to committee action I recommended amending H.R. 
2567 to address only the particular irrigation issue which gave rise to 
the bill, but that suggestion was rejected by the majority. Instead, we 
have a bill of national application with no consideration of its 
national implications.
  Most disturbingly, there is no opportunity for amendment on this 
floor. Had this been brought to the floor as a freestanding bill on the 
Union Calendar, it would have been open to amendment. If it were 
brought on the Suspension Calendar, it would have been subject to a 
higher level of consideration, where a Member with concern over this 
issue could have insisted that his or her concerns be reflected in the 
final version of the bill considered on the floor. This bill should be 
considered either on the Suspension Calendar or in regular order, not 
on the Corrections Calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a corrections day, let us limit it to 
true corrections, and not subvert the regular legislative process.
  This bill would allow States to not establish recreational, aquatic 
life, or fish consumption uses for certain constructed water 
conveyances in limited circumstances where these uses would give rise 
to an unreasonable burden.
  During markup of H.R. 2567 I expressed concerns that the bill could 
allow States to forego protection of human health and the environment 
in order to accommodate industrial, agricultural, and municipal 
interests in saving money, even in situations where it would be 
possible to strike a reasonable balance that simultaneously 
accommodates multiple uses of a constructed waterbody and protects 
human health.
  There are many constructed waterbodies that States have designated 
both for uses such as irrigation, agricultural drainage, and flood 
control and for recreation, aquatic life, and fish consumption. 
Experience has proven that we can use waterbodies for a range of 
purposes--for example swimming and irrigation--and simultaneously 
protect those multiple uses. This Congress must not obstruct our proven 
ability to strike a reasonable balance that both protects people who 
swim and fish in constructed waterbodies, and avoids unreasonable 
burdens on agricultural and municipal and industrial interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention two of the most important 
improvements made during committee consideration of H.R. 2567:
  First, under the bill as introduced, States were not required to 
establish water quality standards for recreation, aquatic life, or fish 
consumption uses if those uses would impede other authorized uses of 
the waterbody. I was vigorously opposed to this provision because it 
set a very low threshold for excusing the protection of recreation and 
other uses and thereby endangering human health. Where multiple uses, 
such as swimming and fishing and agriculture, can reasonably be 
accommodated, it would be a terrible precedent to allow for standards 
that fail to protect people who swim and fish in canals.
  The preferable approach would have been to modify the bill by 
eliminating the clause concerning interference with the intended 
purposes of the conveyance system. The committee amendment substituted 
the word ``interfere'' for the word ``impede.'' This change and the 
explanation in the legislative history indicate the committee's intent 
to establish a meaningful, substantive threshold.
  The committee amendment reflects the intent that States will be 
required to establish water quality standards for recreation, aquatic 
life, and fish consumption uses, unless doing so would create an 
appreciable interference that diminishes the ability of the conveyance 
to accomplish its intended purpose. As the chairman noted in the 
committee report, ``[g]enerally speaking interference caused by 
reasonable, affordable measures to accommodate multiple uses would not 
be expected to exceed the threshold.''
  For example, measures that would not be expected to meet the 
threshold for modifying the requirement to establish water quality 
standards for recreational, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses 
include rice growers in California who have changed irrigation 
practices in order to capture, hold, and reuse irrigation water 
contaminated with herbicides. The new practices significantly reduce 
the amount of chemicals discharged to the Sacramento River, while 
reducing the amount of water used and, therefore, the cost of the 
water. Measures such as these would not be expected to justify a 
State's decision to not establish water quality standards for 
recreational, aquatic life, or fish consumption uses.
  The second amendment I would like to note narrows the breadth of the 
bill, by clarifying that it does not apply to conveyances constructed 
for navigational purposes. As introduced, H.R. 2567 applied to 
constructed conveyances regardless of their purpose. The bill reported 
by the Transportation Committee limits the application of the bill to 
those conveyances constructed for agricultural purposes or municipal 
and industrial water supply purposes. Although I believe that the bill 
should be narrower still, I believe that this modification is an 
important one.
  Under H.R. 2567 as reported by the Transportation Committee, if a 
constructed water conveyance was constructed for or serves more than 
one purpose, and navigation is one of those purposes, then that 
conveyance is not covered by the bill.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a few ways in which I 
believe H.R. 2567 does not alter current law under the Clean Water Act. 
The bill does not modify existing law relating to the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to approve or disapprove water quality 
standards. Nor does the bill authorize the downgrading of existing 
uses. Finally, the factors for consideration under subparagraph (C)(i) 
of the bill are in addition to, not in lieu of, those under current law 
at section 303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. Speaker, with the changes offered by the chairman and adopted by 
the committee, and with the explanation of the bill in the committee 
report and as outlined above, I do not oppose passage of this bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize as strongly as I know how that 
this bill is on the floor today not because the Republican majority 
wants to stuff it down the minority's throats. Quite the contrary, this 
bill is on the floor today because our Democrat colleagues are the ones 
who have provided the leadership to get this moving.
  Indeed, as we mentioned at the start of this debate, it has been the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who have 
provided the leadership and the driving force behind this legislation. 
That is why this is here today, and the majority is happy to have been 
accommodating to our friends in the minority. That is why this 
legislation is here today. It is bipartisan in nature, with nine 
original cosponsors, five Republicans, four Democrats.
  With regard to the substance of the legislation and some of the 
objections which have been expressed, first, to say that this should be 
limited to only a part of the West does not solve the real problem. 
Farmers in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
Texas are all affected. So we need to address those regions of the 
country as well. This legislation does that.
  Further, to say, as the President has indicated, that this should 
apply only to agricultural conveyances, does not solve the real 
problem. It only solves a part of the problem. What do we say to the 
city of Phoenix and other cities who have concrete-lined culverts? Do 
we tell them they have to treat that water like it was a pristine 
stream, even though it is going to cost, in the case of Phoenix, $66 
million and provide absolutely no additional environmental benefit? No, 
I think that is not wise.
  So this legislation does go beyond agricultural conveyances, and 
indeed does address the real problems that many of the cities, 
particularly in the West, face.
  Finally, let me emphasize that in this legislation, it is very, very 
clear, States may use more stringent environmental requirements if they 
choose to. So once again, some of the objections we hear really stem 
from a ``Washington knows best'' attitude. 

[[Page H757]]
The States may impose much more stringent requirements. We trust the 
States. We have confidence in the States. So let us not fall back into 
the old trap of saying ``Washington knows best.'' Let us give 
flexibility to the States. Let us pass this bipartisan legislation 
overwhelmingly. I urge adoption of the bill before us.

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2567, the Constructed Water Conveyances Reform Act of 1995. I want 
to thank Representative Condit for his efforts to address this 
important issue.
  California farmers have been very active in developing innovative 
strategies for reducing the discharge of pollutants into our natural 
waterways. Producers in the Sacramento Valley have used closed drainage 
systems that hold water until its pesticides degrade, making it safe 
for release. Such efforts have yielded extremely impressive results. 
However, the possibility that these closed drainage systems could be 
required to meet water quality standards similar to those for natural 
waterways has created a great deal or uncertainty for users of these 
pollution control methods.
  H.R. 2567 would provide the certainty needed to ensure that these 
innovative efforts to improve water quality can continue to go forward. 
At the same time, its provisions will ensure that there is no change in 
the regulation of the impact of constructed water conveyances on 
natural waterways. In the Sacramento area, we already face significant 
challenges in protecting and improving the quality of our waterways. We 
must not make this task more difficult.
  I am aware that the administration has expressed concern about 
certain aspects of this legislation. I am pleased, however, that they 
are committed to addressing the concerns of California agriculture on 
this matter, and I am ready to work with them to achieve resolution.
  I urge my colleagues support for this issue of great importance to 
California's agricultural economy.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________