[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3335-S3336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Coburn Amendments

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate will have before it a 
series of amendments to the lands bill made by Senator Coburn. I rise 
to oppose specifically two of these amendments, amendment No. 683 and 
amendment No. 675, and I do so on behalf of myself and my friend and 
colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
  These amendments would essentially throw out a legal settlement 
agreement concerning the restoration of the San Joaquin River. The 
settlement agreement ends 18 years of costly litigation. It is the 
product of 4 years of negotiation by the Bush administration, the State 
of California, dozens of water agencies, the Friant water users--it 
affects Friant, and Friant is a Division of the Central Valley Project 
and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this Division; it is big, it 
is important, it is critical--and by environmental and fishing groups.
  This was a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council 
against the Federal Government saying that what was happening at Friant 
Dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect the salmon.
  I wish to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a 
letter by the Governor of the State of California, Arnold 
Schwarzenegger, supporting the settlement agreement, and a letter from 
the U.S. Department of Justice supporting the settlement agreement. I 
also commend to my colleagues a Congressional Research Service 
Memorandum entitled ``Institutional and Economic Context of the San 
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,'' spelling out the institutional 
and economic context of this settlement agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
  So we have broad and strong support for the settlement agreement. 
Now, the question is, Why do we have it? The reason we have it is 
because it is my understanding that the Government has lost the case, 
and the result is that with or without the settlement, a Federal court 
will require restoration of the San Joaquin River. According to all of 
the parties, the court could--and we believe would--order a huge 
release of water from Friant Dam, negatively impacting the 15,000 farms 
in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.
  In contrast, the settlement agreement allows orderly restoration of 
the river, with minimized impacts to irrigated agricultural and 
municipal water users. It provides negotiated flood control and other 
protections for private landowners. It represents a sensible and hard-
fought consensus solution. I know, because these parties came to me and 
asked me if I would sit down with all of the parties and try to put 
together this settlement agreement, and we did, in fact, do this. It is 
virtually supported by all of these elements.
  Also, the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers than 
returning to court and having the end result of having a Federal judge 
manage the river. That is what the alternative is. Here is why: The 
settlement provides almost $400 million in non-Federal funds, so what 
would have had to have been funded by the Federal taxpayers will be 
lowered. Effectively, the costs are lowered to Federal taxpayers. The 
affected water districts have agreed to help fund the settlement with 
approximately $200 million. The State of California will provide 
another $200 million. If the Coburn amendment is successful and this is 
dropped from the bill, the Federal Government will have to pay an 
additional $400 million and face the fact that the judge could well 
order a huge release of water, not staggered to any particular time, in 
no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the 
farming community.
  The settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by 
providing water supply certainty for users, but without the settlement 
water users in Friant could face more severe water losses and 
potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. As I say, 
this is 15,000 separate farming entities, so that is unacceptable.
  Critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending and that 
it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. But the 
facts prove them wrong. To get the number the critics use, they assume 
that only 500 fish will ever be restored; that is, salmon, instead of 
the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as 
a self-sustaining fishery. They ignore all the other benefits of the 
settlement.
  According to the Congressional Research Service analysis I have 
referenced, it is ``misleading'' to disregard the ``full array of 
likely project costs and benefits,'' including ``the values that 
Californians and U.S. citizens place on improvements in environmental 
quality and restored runs of salmon.''
  The bottom line: The settlement offers the best possible solution to 
a longstanding water fight in my State. I do not believe there is 
anything wasteful about it. Remember, this suit has gone on for 18 
years. I have talked with every one of the parties. They have all come 
together asking for a settlement agreement, including the Federal 
Government, the State of California, and actually the environmental 
group that sued, the NRDC, because they believe that if left to the 
judge, the action might be very adverse in terms of large amounts of 
water, rather than being staggered and done in a more sensible way, 
would be detrimental to the Friant farmers as well as, quite possibly, 
to the fish.
  The other problematic amendment offered by Senator Coburn is 
amendment No. 675 which would remove the Government's eminent domain 
authority for the public lands omnibus bill, including the San Joaquin 
River settlement title of the lands bill.
  Now, to be candid, none of us like the use of eminent domain. In the 
9 years I was mayor, I refused to use eminent domain in San Francisco 
and, in fact, never did. But Senator Coburn's amendment ignores the 
basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to 
carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region 
because the water comes from one place, the State is vast, and it has 
to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that 
water is enormous in the seventh largest economy on Earth.
  These water projects need to have the use of eminent domain as a last 
resort for building water projects and flood channels on a willing 
seller-willing buyer basis. Otherwise, the Government clearly is not 
going to be able to build water conduits, water projects, and flood 
control elements where they are most needed. That may be different in 
small States, but in huge States such as California, where the water 
comes primarily either from the very north of the State, the Sierra 
Nevada mountain range, or the Colorado River--where we are being weaned 
off of the Colorado River, and have an

[[Page S3336]]

agreement to dramatically cut our take of water from the Colorado 
River--we have to have the conveyances to move the water around the 
State.
  Private landowners also receive the benefit of upgraded flood 
protections and bypasses around key diversion points, so that fish are 
not diverted along with irrigation supplies. This is a very sensitive, 
very problematic area. It has taken a lot of work to know how to do 
this. The Federal Government could not build these flood and bypass 
measures to benefit third party landowners without the ability to 
acquire land through eminent domain. That is just a fact.
  There is a great need for water projects in my State. If we don't 
move, I believe California will end up a desert State. We are faced 
with high wildfire potential, with warming climates, and reduced water. 
We are in the third year of a drought.
  Mr. President, you might be interested in knowing that for the big 
Central Valley of California, which makes California the No. 1 
agricultural producer in America, most of that valley's water 
allocation from the Central Valley Project for this year is zero, which 
means fallowing, which means cutting out trees and crops. So we are in 
a very sensitive situation.
  I urge the Senate to vote no on these Coburn amendments. I think it 
is very easy to come in and second-guess a situation and not know 
anything about 18 years of litigation and the fact that the Government 
is going to lose the case and having to try to work out a settlement, 
which gets the best for all of the parties concerned. I believe we have 
done it, and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation.
  This has been approved by this body once. To remove the bill and the 
eminent domain authority from the lands bill would be tragic. Again, 
the Federal Government would have to pick up the costs the State of 
California is willing to pay under this settlement--$200 million--and 
the cost these water contractors are willing to provide--$200 million--
and do the whole job itself, which is going to cost an additional $400 
million.
  These amendments are in no way, shape, or form, cost effective, and 
they will hamstring California's effort to solve what is an egregious 
problem, and that is an increasingly drying State, which is in drought 
almost on a perpetual basis and is trying to solve its problems.
  On behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I urge a ``no'' vote on both of 
these amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not count against 
the time allocated for the Kirk nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                State Capitol,

                                      Sacramento, CA, May 5, 2008.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As Congress again considers 
     legislation needed to implement the Settlement Agreement 
     reached to restore the San Joaquin River, I write to 
     reiterate my support of your leadership in this matter and to 
     urge Congress to act now to take advantage of this historic 
     opportunity. Restoring the San Joaquin River will provide 
     vital benefits to the environment, to the people of the San 
     Joaquin Valley, and to all Californians. I remain confident 
     that this settlement can be implemented to provide these 
     important benefits while minimizing impacts to the Friant 
     water users and preserving the regional economy.
       The state of California has already committed substantial 
     funding to support the settlement effort. In November 2006, 
     California voters approved Proposition 84, the Water Quality, 
     Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection 
     Bond, which earmarks $100 million to support San Joaquin 
     River restoration. Other bond funds are available to provide 
     flood management improvements and to support regional water 
     supply reliability projects. Moreover, I have directed my 
     Administration to pursue all available opportunities to 
     contribute to the dual restoration and water management goals 
     of the Settlement Agreement.
       Thank you again for your leadership to secure the passage 
     of the necessary legislation to advance the restoration of 
     the San Joaquin River. Please know that my Administration 
     remains committed to this important effort and we look 
     forward to continuing our work with the federal government on 
     this significant restoration program.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arnold Schwarzenegger,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2007.
     Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice (DOJ) strongly 
     supports H.R. 4074, the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (originally introduced by Congressman 
     Radanovich as H.R. 24). This bill provides necessary 
     authorization and funding to carry out the terms of the San 
     Joaquin River Settlement. The purpose of the settlement is to 
     fully restore the San Joaquin River and to mitigate the 
     impact of water losses on water districts in the Friant 
     Division of the Central Valley Project who have long-term 
     contractual rights and obligations with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation. This settlement not only resolves litigation 
     over the operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's Friant Dam 
     east of Fresno, California, it provides a framework for the 
     restoration of the San Joaquin River and its fishery in a way 
     that protects the sustainability of farming in the Friant 
     Division.
       On October 23, 2006, the United States District Court for 
     the Eastern District of California approved this settlement, 
     ending eighteen years of litigation, Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al. The 
     Administration previously announced its support for 
     legislation implementing this settlement in testimony before 
     your Committee on March 1, 2007, by Jason Peltier, Principal 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science for the U.S. 
     Department of the Interior. The State of California has 
     pledged its support for the Settlement in the amount of $200 
     million.
       Enactment of H.R. 4074 is essential to the implementation 
     of this historic, court-approved settlement. Without this 
     legislation, the Secretary of the Interior lacks sufficient 
     authority to implement the actions in the settlement, 
     Implementation of the San Joaquin River Settlement will avoid 
     the high cost and uncertainty that will result from a return 
     to litigation if the settlement is not implemented.
       Thank you for the consideration of our views. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact this office if we can be of further 
     assistance in this matter. The Office of Management and 
     Budget has advised that there is no objection to the 
     submission of this letter from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program.
           Sincerely,

                                         Brian A. Benczkowski,

                                       Principal Deputy Assistant,
                                                 Attorney General.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged 
equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.