[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.
____________________