[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1354-E1355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 15, 1998

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the restoration 
of the Salton Sea and have worked with my colleagues for some time in 
furtherance of that goal. I am a cosponsor of this bill, the Sonny Bono 
Salton Sea Reclamation Act, and when it was introduced I had hoped that 
we could proceed quickly in a bipartisan effort to produce a bill that 
all Members of the House could support. The introduced bill had 
provisions I was not happy with, but in the spirit of compromise I went 
along, believing that it could be improved as it moved through the 
Resources Committee. Obviously, that has not happened. In fact, the 
bill has picked up more contention, leaving us with much work to do to 
resolve the differences of opinion about how we should proceed to 
restore this unique and valuable ecosystem.
  I would like to highlight the fact that despite the differences that 
have been discussed, there is much we agree upon. At the start of this 
Congress, there were few Members who had ever heard of the Salton Sea. 
Now, thanks to the efforts of our departed colleague, Representative 
Sonny Bono, and the other Members of the Salton Sea Task Force, 
Congress is aware, not only of its location, but of its catastrophic 
problems.
  I believe we have a unanimous bipartisan commitment to address the 
Salton Sea's problems. We all went to see the Salton Sea restored and 
maintained as a viable ecosystem which enhances the quality of life for 
the residents of southern California and which supports a diversity of 
economic activity in this region. Our challenge is to work together to 
achieve that goal.
  The Salton Sea is a valuable national and international resource. It 
is an important resting and feeding area for birds migrating along the 
Pacific flyway. It once supported a vibrant recreational economy. It 
is, can be, and should be much more than a receptacle for agricultural 
runoff and for polluted New and Alamo River water.
  While there are those who have been aware for some time that the Sea 
was in trouble, there has been a failure to act. The death of migratory 
birds and repeated fish-kills has brought national attention to this 
issue. If we continue our present policy of no action, I fear the bird 
and fish deaths will be but a few of the negative environmental 
consequences that will become apparent to all of us.
  One of those negative consequences, in a slightly longer time frame, 
will result from the export of conserved agricultural water to urban 
users, and the treatment and re-use by Mexico of water now flowing 
across the U.S.-Mexico border which may cause the Salton Sea to shrink 
by as much as one quarter. This will expose a hundred square miles or 
more of highly polluted sea bottom to blowing winds, as has already 
happened in the very similar case of Owen's Lake. The cost of 
mitigating the environmental damage resulting from such decrease in 
area of the sea could easily reach 100 million dollars per year, far 
more than the

[[Page E1355]]

cost of stabilizing the level of the sea at an elevation close to its 
present elevation.
  Now with all of the agreement on the need for rapid environmental 
mitigation, I am deeply disappointed in the bill produced by the 
Resources Committee and the manager's amendment which was adopted last 
Wednesday. A number of provisions in the reported bill and the 
amendment cause problems: the inappropriate authorization of EPA funds; 
the Clean Water Act permit exemption; the broad liability exemption for 
local water district activities; the complex and probably 
unconstitutional provisions for triggering a construction authorization 
for a not yet defined, or designed, technological fix. These provisions 
are all inappropriate. They have drawn severe criticism from the 
environmental community and the Administration and that criticism is 
warranted.
  Some of what my colleagues may view as my abandonment of this bill is 
due to my naive faith that the problems which I have described would be 
corrected. It was not apparent to me until I reviewed a copy of the 
substitute amendment early last week that such was not the case. Some 
of the fault is mine and I regret that I was not clearer in emphasizing 
the failings of the reported bill to my fellow members of the Task 
Force. However, I would point out that these issues had been raised to 
us and in the Resources Committee by the Administration and the 
environmental community for some time prior to this bill's coming to 
the floor.
  Last week I found myself in the unfortunate situation of seeking to 
fix a bill on the floor that should have been fixed by the manager's 
amendment. Although the substitute that Mr. Miller and I offered 
failed, I reluctantly supported the bill, fully aware that it has no 
real opportunity to be enacted into law and still having major concerns 
with its provisions. I realize that my fellow Task Force Members are 
disappointed that I cosponsored a substitute amendment, but I felt I 
had to take the last opportunity I had in the House to produce a bill 
that could proceed beyond House passage; a bill that would have a 
chance to gain broad, bipartisan support; a bill that would gain the 
endorsement, and not the wrath, of the environmental community; a bill 
that would be rapidly moved through the Senate and enthusiastically 
received by the Administration. In short, a bill that could become a 
law.
  As an original co-sponsor of this legislation, I feel an obligation 
to move the process forward in this Congress. It is my hope that we can 
find a clear bipartisan solution in the Senate. I supported the bill 
last week on final passage with great reluctance, hoping that the 
Senate will perfect the bill. However, should the remaining legislative 
work on this bill in the Senate return a Conference Report that has not 
removed the provisions I have mentioned or return the existing bill, I 
will oppose enactment of the legislation.
  I want my colleagues to know what a painful situation this puts me 
in. I grew up in the Salton Sea basin, in the Imperial Valley. I feel 
some sense of history and personal responsibility in cleaning up the 
Salton Sea and in finishing the work in which our former colleague, 
Sonny Bono, was so deeply involved. But I cannot stand by and let this 
effort be endangered by legislation that has failed to meet the 
standard that Sonny would have set, namely to be meritorious enough to 
gain easy bipartisan and bicameral support. It is my hope that we can 
accomplish that goal in the near future.

                          ____________________