[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1710-E1711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 25, 1996

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, recently the House passed the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. This legislation 
includes a long-sought solution to resolve the issues concerning costs 
of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program. This language directs the 
Secretary of Interior to collect repayment of the cost of the Kesterson 
drain as described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, Kesterson 
Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, 
February 1995''.
  While all parties involved in the Kesterson cleanup issue are pleased 
with the solution of the repayment situation, there are several 
landowners who are involved in a lawsuit--Sumner Peck Ranch--that stems 
from the closing of the drain. The closing of the drain has led to the 
degradation of land in the area. In some cases this land has become 
incapable of being farmed. The basis of the lawsuit is that the 
landowners believe that the Federal Government should provide them with 
monetary compensation for the loss of the productive use of their land 
because the Federal Government is not operating a drain as promised in 
past contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation.
  The case has not been resolved, and mandatory settlement discussions 
before the Ninth Circuit's chief mediator are ongoing. I want to make 
clear that the language contained in the fiscal year 1997 energy and 
water development appropriations bill in no way was intended to affect 
the outcome of the Sumner

[[Page E1711]]

Peck Ranch litigation. The only purpose of the language was to resolve 
the long-standing dispute regarding the allocation of the repayment 
responsibilities.

                          ____________________