[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H403-H405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IDAHO WILDERNESS WATER FACILITIES ACT
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4474) to authorize the continued use of certain water
diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in
the State of Idaho, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1038, the bill
is considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4474
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 ``Idaho Wilderness Water
Facilities Act''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF EXISTING WATER DIVERSIONS IN FRANK
CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS AND
SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS, IDAHO.
(a) Authorization for Continued Use.--The Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to issue a special use
authorization to each of the 20 owners of a water storage,
transport, or diversion facility (in this section referred to
as a ``facility'') located on National Forest System land in
the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness or the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness (as identified on the map titled
``Unauthorized Private Water Diversions located within the
Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness'', dated December
14, 2009, or the map titled ``Unauthorized Private Water
Diversions located within the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness'',
dated December 11, 2009) for the continued operation,
maintenance, and reconstruction of the facility if the
Secretary determines that--
(1) the facility was in existence on the date on which the
land upon which the facility is located was designated as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (in this
section referred to as ``the date of designation'');
(2) the facility has been in substantially continuous use
to deliver water for the beneficial use on the owner's non-
Federal land since the date of designation;
(3) the owner of the facility holds a valid water right for
use of the water on the owner's non-Federal land under Idaho
State law, with a priority date that predates the date of
designation; and
(4) it is not practicable or feasible to relocate the
facility to land outside of the wilderness and continue the
beneficial use of water on the non-Federal land recognized
under State law.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) Equipment, transport, and use terms and conditions.--In
a special use authorization issued under subsection (a), the
Secretary is authorized to--
(A) allow use of motorized equipment and mechanized
transport for operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of a
facility, if the Secretary determines that--
(i) the use is necessary to allow the facility to continue
delivery of water to the non-Federal land for the beneficial
uses recognized by the water right held under Idaho State
law; and
(ii) after conducting a minimum tool analysis for the
facility, the use of nonmotorized equipment and nonmechanized
transport is impracticable or infeasible; and
(B) preclude use of the facility for the storage,
diversion, or transport of water in excess of the water right
recognized by the State of Idaho on the date of designation.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--In a special use
authorization issued under subsection (a), the Secretary is
authorized to--
(A) require or allow modification or relocation of the
facility in the wilderness, as the Secretary determines
necessary, to reduce impacts to wilderness values set forth
in section 2 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131) if the
beneficial use of water on the non-Federal land is not
diminished; and
(B) require that the owner provide a reciprocal right of
access across the non-Federal property, in which case, the
owner shall receive market value for any right-of-way or
other interest in real property conveyed to the United
States, and market value may be paid by the Secretary, in
whole or in part, by the grant of a reciprocal right-of-way,
or by reduction of fees or other costs that may accrue to the
owner to obtain the authorization for water facilities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
[[Page H404]]
revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R.
4474.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4474,
introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson of
Idaho. This bill would authorize the continued use of certain water
diversions located in wilderness areas on national forest system land
in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho. Predating the existence of
the two wilderness areas, private land owners had received permits to
maintain and repair these water diversions. The water is used for a
combination of purposes, including drinking water for private cabins
and ranches. Many of the permits have since expired, leaving those who
own the water diversions without the ability to mechanically maintain
the systems because they are located in designated wilderness. Under
the terms of this legislation, the Secretary of Agriculture could only
issue new permits if the owner demonstrates that the facility existed
prior to the designated wilderness, the facility had been used to
deliver water to the owner's land since the designation, the owner had
a valid water right, and it would not be practical to move the facility
out of the wilderness area.
This is narrowly tailored legislation designed to put in place a
balanced reasonable solution to a specific conflict. Mr. Minnick and
Mr. Simpson are to be commended for working cooperatively and in a
bipartisan fashion to craft this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I will first speak to the merits of this legislation
before focusing on the partisan reasons why the House is having to
debate this bill and this legislation for a second week in a row. This
bill was originally introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho to require the
Forest Service to issue special use maintenance permits to owners of a
small number of existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas.
Although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners
currently lack the authority to maintain and repair these facilities.
Failure to maintain these facilities can harm not only those who depend
on access to the water that these structures provide but also damage
the environment and watersheds of the Forest Service land.
H.R. 4474 will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do
the necessary maintenance. The legislation is narrowly tailored to
apply only to a small number of sites that meet specific criteria. To
qualify, the water diversion facility must have been in existence on
the date that the area was designated as part of the National
Wilderness Preservation System. It must have been in substantially
continuous use since the date of that designation, and the owner of the
facilities must hold a valid water right under Idaho law that predates
the wilderness designation.
Additionally, sites can only be covered by the bill if it is not
practical or feasible to relocate the facilities to land outside the
wilderness area and continue the beneficial use of water recognized
under State law.
This is a bill and policy that I believe merits strong support in
this House. Congress needs to have a reasonable and commonsense
approach to managing our Federal lands. Wilderness designations
preclude such commonsense management. The restrictions on activity are
so severe and inflexible, the designation is often applied to
unsuitable lands, and problems and conflicts arise out of that
designation.
And so here we are today. Congress must go back once again and fix
the problems created by previous wilderness designation law. Congress
needs to execute far more caution and care and forethought before
designating wilderness areas, as the effects are to lock up these areas
for human activity. We ought to be wise enough to devise sound
conservation practices on our land without creating the unintended
threats to neighboring families that poorly thought out wilderness
designation can bring to many. There is no reason why we cannot be both
good stewards and good neighbors.
So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a matter of good public policy,
and I support the changes this legislation will make in the law.
However, as a matter of how the Democrat leaders who control this House
are choosing to operate this House, I object to the extreme partisan
maneuvering surrounding this bill. Last week the House voted on this
exact same bill, but there are only two differences between that bill
and this bill. First, this is a new bill with a new number. And second,
the lead sponsor is now a Democrat instead of a Republican. Last week
this bill was H.R. 3538, sponsored by Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho.
Today the bill is numbered H.R. 4474, and the lead sponsor is Democrat
Walt Minnick of Idaho. So let me repeat. The bill is word for word the
same that the House voted on last week, except the sponsorship has been
switched so that a Democrat is now the prime sponsor.
Now, I have to say, Madam Speaker, this is truly a remarkable display
of partisanship. First, Democrat leaders directed their Members to vote
against this legislation last week because a totally separate piece of
legislation failed to pass on the suspension calendar. And now these
Democrat leaders are playing a partisan switcheroo in sponsorship of
this bill so a Democrat gets credit for this bill's passing. I assume
it's going to pass now that the switcheroo has happened. I might add,
by the way, that the area that we're talking about is in Mr. Simpson's
district.
So, Madam Speaker, with unemployment in double digits, millions of
Americans without jobs, and with record deficits set last year by a
Democrat President and this Congress, one would think that this House
would have more important things to do than to engage in such overt and
obvious partisan tactics.
With that, Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
I reserve my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do appreciate
the manner which the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member, has
stressed the bipartisan nature of this legislation. As he knows, in our
Committee on Natural Resources, it's always our effort to improve a
product the second time we consider it, and that's what we're doing
here today with this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Minnick), who has been so instrumental in bringing this
legislation forward and worked so hard in crafting it.
Mr. MINNICK. I thank the chairman. And I would like to indicate that
the partisanship which leads to this particular procedural process for
bringing this bill back to the floor has nothing to do with the merits
of the legislation. Congressman Simpson has done a great deal of work
on these remote water systems that were ignored when two wilderness
areas were protected, and exist in both of our districts, carefully
crafting, as the ranking minority on the committee has stated, the
Congressman from Washington, carefully crafting a very narrow bill
which creates some exceptions that allow 22 land holders who have,
since before these areas were created as wilderness, operated very
simple gravity-fed water systems whose points of intake are now in
wilderness because they're upstream, up small creeks in almost every
incident, and who need to maintain these systems from time to time,
occasionally using mechanical means.
Congressman Simpson looked and catalogued these 22 inholdings,
drafted very carefully legislation to deal with this issue to correct
the oversight. And the oversight was not the wilderness; it was just
not considering the continued use of these private inholdings. The
legislation will allow them to continue operating as they are in
perpetuity. This is good legislation. It's good for Idaho. It's good
for wilderness.
I want to congratulate my colleague on his diligence, and to urge my
colleagues to support this remedial legislation.
{time} 1245
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
[[Page H405]]
Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond to my distinguished chairman. It
is true that we do have a lot of bipartisanship on our committee, and I
appreciate the gentleman for making that point, and I am certainly
doing everything on my part to ensure that that continues on. However,
I will make the point we did have a hearing on H.R. 3538, the measure
sponsored by Mr. Simpson.
We have not had a hearing, however, on H.R. 4474 which is before us
today sponsored by Mr. Minnick. I just wanted to point that out because
we try to be in regular order as much as we possibly can, and I think
that is worth pointing out.
So I would hope that this legislation does pass the House with strong
bipartisan support. Maybe it will be able to send the signal that we
can indeed work in a bipartisan way if only we change sponsorships of
certain bills; but that remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, but I look
forward to that time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4474, the
Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act.
This bipartisan, non-controversial legislation is a technical fix
intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing
historical water diversions within Idaho wilderness.
Last year, one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem.
The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness Area that has existed since before the
wilderness area was established and is protected under statute.
The diversion was beginning to leak and is in desperate need of
repairs to ensure that it does not threaten the environment and
watershed, but when the Forest Service began the process of issuing the
Lodge a permit to allow them to make the necessary repairs, we
discovered that the Forest Service did not have the authority to issue
the required permit.
As we looked into this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service
lacks this authority throughout both the Frank Church-River of No
Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are
a number of these diversions. These diversions are primarily used to
support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on non-
Federal lands.
The damage to the water diversion at the Middle Fork Lodge is severe
enough that the Forest Service had to do temporary emergency repairs
last fall, but without authority to issue them the necessary special
use permit, they will be unable to do the work needed to permanently
fix the problem.
While the urgent situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this
issue to my attention, it is obvious to me that this problem is larger
than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 20 of these
existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure
their integrity.
H.R. 4474 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use permits
for 20 qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness areas. I
believe it is important to get ahead of this problem and ensure that
the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these lands.
For these reasons I have worked with my colleague, Walt Minnick, to
introduce H.R. 4474. This legislation allows the Forest Service to
issue the required special use permits to owners of these historic
water systems and sets out specific criteria for doing so.
Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions
can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves
beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under
State law.
I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in
addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the
need to find a system-wide solution to this issue, but at my request
they have worked with me on this legislation to ensure that it only
impacts specific targeted historical diversions--those with valid water
rights that cannot feasibly be relocated outside of the wilderness
area.
H.R. 4474 is bipartisan and non-controversial. It is intended as a
simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree
should be solved as quickly as possible. I was encouraged that the bill
passed out of Committee without objection, and I am hopeful that today
we can pass it without delay so that the necessary maintenance to these
diversions may be completed before the damage is beyond repair.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back my time.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1038, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
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 the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________