[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1615-H1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY EMERGENCY WATER DELIVERY ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3964.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3964.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1454
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3964) to address certain water-related concerns in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the House today is considering H.R. 3964, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.
Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent
on irrigated water to support our local economic and agriculture
industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable
water supply, and I also understand the economic devastation that is
caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff
is avoidable.
California is facing an emergency situation. For years, San Joaquin
Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and
environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to
help a 3-inch fish. In 2009, there was a deliberate diversion of over
300 billion--that is ``billion,'' Mr. Chairman--gallons of water away
from farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs,
unemployment in some areas reached 40 percent, and thousands of acres
of fertile farmland simply dried up.
As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled
to Fresno, California, and seen the effects of natural and manmade
drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas
of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their
livelihood restored.
We have seen farmers, Mr. Chairman, who normally help feed the Nation
being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, being
served carrots that are normally grown in this area that are from
China.
That is why, last Congress, the House of Representatives passed
bipartisan legislation to restore the flow of water to avoid future
droughts. In fact, the Senate did not take up a single water bill in
this last Congress, even after we had passed our legislation.
So, once again, we are back here on the floor of the House with
legislation to help California communities once again facing water
shutoffs. But now, Mr. Chairman, the situation is much more dire.
The lack of rainfall has exacerbated the manmade drought, and last
month, the California Governor declared a state of emergency. A manmade
drought coupled with a natural drought equals disaster and requires
immediate action. Of course, these conditions could have been partially
avoided if only the Senate had acted on the House-passed legislation
last year.
This comprehensive solution before us today, almost identical to what
the House passed the last Congress, would restore some water deliveries
that will be cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental
lawsuits, ensure a reliable water source for people and fish, secure
water rights, and save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious
government projects.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact
California, but it has rippling effects across the entire Nation.
California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and
provides a significant share of the fruits and vegetables for our
country.
Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply
suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country and
increased reliance on foreign food sources.
This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to
end future manmade droughts, and to protect the jobs and economic
livelihoods of farm families and their workers.
The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer, Mr.
Chairman, for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it
is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. I sincerely
hope that, unlike the last Congress, our Senate colleagues will take up
this bill or propose a meaningful alternative to it, then we can come
together and figure out where we disagree and then agree on a final
package. These communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing
less.
This bill is supported, Mr. Chairman, by the entire Republican
California delegation, and I commend my colleagues from California for
their hard work in getting this bill to the floor today. So I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1616]]
{time} 1500
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would invite my colleague to visit southern
California to check with the rest of California on how we are handling
the drought.
Ninety-eight percent of California, as shown by this map, is in
drought. We are entering the third year of drought, the driest on
record in California.
This bill, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency
Water Delivery Act, targets California's Central Valley only and was
introduced 1 week ago with no hearing, no markup, no conversation,
nothing, a partisan bill, introduced only by California Republicans,
with no meaningful conversation or cooperation with the rest of the
California Members, who are all facing similar drought impacts. It is
similar to H.R. 1837 from 2011 in the last Congress, and it died in the
Senate, as was pointed out.
According to the California Department of Water Resources, the
snowpack in the Sierras, the largest reservoir in the Central Valley
Project System, was 6 percent of normal. Last week, the National
Drought Monitor found that 98 percent of the State is experiencing
moderate to severe drought--so dry in California that in the first 18
days of January, the State saw 289 fires that burned 721 acres,
including the Colby fire partly in my district.
The State has hired nearly 100 more firefighters and used a super
water scooper airplane, at a time when California should be
experiencing its wettest month.
California Natural Resources Secretary Laird said it best in a
letter: ``This bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that
cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water simply does not
exist.''
This legislation, instead, reallocates water in a way that
erroneously elevates junior water rights uses above all other water
needs, including municipal, fisheries and environmental uses.
It repeals existing State law for water use in California,
establishing a very harmful precedent for other States. It repeals
sections 104, 107, 108, 110, 204, and 401 that explicitly waive State
law or reclamation law. It repeals historic California water rights and
decades of carefully balanced water compromises. It undermines
California and other States' abilities to manage its own resources. It
overturns nearly 20 years of environmental and conservation protections
under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA, and the
Endangered Species Act, and ignores the best available science
demonstrating the negative effects on species. We are, in fact, a
species too, the human species.
It repeals the Federal and State agreement on the court-ordered San
Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. It prohibits Federal or State
governments from exercising valid water rights in order to conserve,
enhance, recover, or otherwise protect any species that is affected by
operations of the CVP or State Water Project. It also reallocates water
for junior water rights holders in the Central Valley and ignores the
needs of southern California and other water users while privatizing a
public resource for a select few.
It does not--I repeat--does not create any new water to solve the
drought. It completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the
environment and allowing water deliveries. It eliminates that coequal
code. It puts jobs at risk, not only for fishermen but also the
economy. It would revert contract renewal terms to 40 years instead of
the current 25.
Mr. Chairman, the severity of this legislation benefits a very small
group. It does not benefit all of drought-impacted California. It needs
the cooperation of a bipartisan solution for all of the State,
including southern California.
Water bonds in the past have favored northern California. The levee
funding favored the Bay Delta, and H.R. 3964 favors Central Valley
farmers only.
Southern California wants and needs to be included in a dialogue and
be part of the solution. We are currently in dialogue with the Senators
on a drought bill.
Title XVI, which is recycled water, WaterSMART, Republicans have been
stonewalling ideas. They are not allowing bills to be given the
courtesy of a hearing in the subcommittee or full committee.
The Bureau of Reclamation is working with WaterSMART project funding
of only $27.5 million and water recycling project funding, Title XVI,
of $21.5 million, with a backlog of $400 million in congressionally
approved projects.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit letters in opposition: from the White
House, a statement and a veto threat; from the Governor of California,
Governor Brown; from the California Department of Natural Resources
Secretary John Laird; from California Attorney General Kamala Harris;
and from 34 diverse California environmental groups.
The Western States Water Council indicates their opposition has not
changed to the provisions that preempt states' rights. The bill will
just create more litigation over water and not solve anything. We need
to work on a bipartisan basis on putting that forth. H.R. 3964 is not
such an attempt. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3964.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Office of the Governor,
February 3, 2014.
Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative DeFazio: California is
currently experiencing the worst water crisis in our modern
history. We are in our third consecutive year of extremely
dry weather, and our most recent snow survey found that the
Sierra snowpack--a source of water supply for 25 million
Californians--is 12 percent of the normal average, the lowest
ever recorded. Since declaring a drought state of emergency
on January 17th, state agencies have been working closely
with federal, local, and municipal agencies and others, to
respond quickly. We have taken unprecedented actions to deal
with the crisis, including allocating zero water deliveries
to water contractors from the State Water Project for the
first time in the project's history. Last week, California
also released a comprehensive plan for future water
management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water
transfers and other actions.
H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into
California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would
override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain
water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests
the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible
given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would
interfere with our ability to respond effectively and
flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old
water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a
collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.
I urge you to oppose H.R. 3964.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
____
State of California,
Office of the Attorney General,
February 4, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
Dear House Speaker Boehner and House Minority Leader
Pelosi: I am writing to express my opposition to H.R. 3964,
the Sacramento San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery
Act. Like its 2012 predecessor, H.R. 1873, H.R. 3964 would
abrogate long-standing provisions of California law designed
to protect the State's natural resources and violate settled
constitutional principles of state sovereignty. Furthermore,
the legislation would imperil the State's traditional
authority to manage its natural resources without providing
any meaningful emergency drought relief for the people of
California.
After two dry years, Californians are facing potentially
the driest year in the State's history. The Sierra Nevada
snow pack is 12 percent of normal. Storage levels at Shasta,
Folsom, and Oroville reservoirs are below the 1977 drought
levels. The California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) have
responded to this drought emergency by agreeing to relax
certain water quality standards to ensure that the federal
Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project
(SWP) can meet health and human safety requirements and can
reasonably protect all beneficial uses of water.
[[Page H1617]]
Notwithstanding the prompt and laudable efforts of
California's natural resources agencies to address the
drought emergency, H.R. 3964 would remove key water resources
management powers from these agencies. The legislation would
transgress the principles of state sovereignty in at least
three important respects. First, the legislation would
mandate that the CVP and the SWP operate to fixed water
quality standards for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
developed almost twenty years ago, and would preclude state
authorities from altering such standards. Second, the
legislation would prohibit the SWRCB and the DFW from
exercising their state law responsibilities to protect
fishery resources and public trust values, not only as to CVP
and SWP operations, but as to all holders of appropriative
water rights in California. Third, the legislation would
overturn settled principles of cooperative federalism by
vacating the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act and
banning the application of State fishery protections to the
San Joaquin River operations of the Friant Unit of the CVP.
These proposed constraints on California's ability to
manage its natural resources contravene long-standing
principles of western water law. In California v. United
States (1978) 438 U.S. 645, 653 the U.S. Supreme Court
affirmed California's ability to impose state law terms and
conditions on federal reclamation projects, and declared
that, ``[t]he history of the relationship between the Federal
government and the States in the reclamation of the arid
lands of the Western States is both long and involved, but
though it runs the consistent thread of purposeful and
continued deference to state water law by Congress.''
California law grants the SWRCB the continuing authority to
review and reconsider all water rights for the purpose of
determining whether their exercise would violate the
reasonable use requirement of Article X, Section 2 of the
California constitution and California's common law doctrine
of the public trust. According to the California Supreme
Court, ``[t]he state has an affirmative duty to take the
public trust into account in the planning and allocation of
water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever
feasible.'' (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court
(1983) 33 Ca1.3d 419, 446.) The California Legislature has
expressly adopted these principles as ``the foundation of
state water management policy.'' (Cal. Wat. Code,
Sec. 85023.) By abrogating the State's ability to apply these
principles to water users, H.R. 3964 contravenes the long-
standing history of deference to state water law.
Moreover, H.R. 3964 takes these steps in violation of
settled constitutional principles of state sovereignty.
Relying upon separation of powers principles set forth in the
Tenth Amendment and elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution, the
U.S. Supreme Court in New York v. United States has held that
``congress may not simply `commandee[r] the legislative
processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact
and enforce a federal regulatory program.'' (New York v.
United States (1992) 505 U.S. 144, 161, citing Hodel v.
Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. (1981) 452
U.S. 263, 288.) In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme
Court expanded its ruling in New York and declared that
``[t]oday we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that
prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly.''
(Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 935.) According
to the court, the constitutional system of dual sovereignty
demands that ``[t]he Federal Government may neither issue
directives requiring the States to address particular
problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their
political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal
regulatory program.'' (Id.)
By compelling the SWP, a state funded and managed water
project, to operate based upon congressionally mandated Delta
water quality standards, rather than allowing California to
develop standards that reflect the most recent scientific
information regarding the Delta, H.R. 3964 violates the U.S.
Supreme Court's state sovereignty principles. By prohibiting
the SWRCB, the DFW or other state agencies from taking action
to protect fishery and public trust values other than those
mandated by Congress, the legislation further violates these
state sovereignty principles. Congressional passage of H.R.
3964 would have, in effect, unconstitutionally ``dragooned''
state officers ``into administering federal law.'' (Id at p.
928.)
I urge you to reject H.R. 3964. Consistent with the
principles of state sovereignty, California's natural
resource agencies have timely and responsibly taken measures
to address the present drought emergency within the context
of California law. It is important that the present legal
framework of dual sovereignty for water resources issues be
strengthened and preserved, rather than dismantled.
Sincerely,
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General.
____
California Natural
Resources Agency,
January 30, 2014.
Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio and Members
of the Committee: California is experiencing the worst water
crisis in our modern history. We are in our third consecutive
year of below normal precipitation and, this year's
snowpack--on which 25 million Californians depend as the
source of their water supply--currently is only 10 percent of
what it should be. In Sacramento and Redding, we have broken
all records for consecutive dry days in the middle of the
rainy season. The California Department of Public Health
reports that 17 communities across the state are at risk of
running out of drinking water within 60-120 days. Just days
ago, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife announced
the closure of several fisheries and CAL FIRE has already
responded to over 400 fires in the month of January, a
startling fact when you consider they responded to zero
during the same time last year. As you know, California's
climate is such that it is generally dry for almost half the
year--and we rely on rain and snow during the winter season
to carry us through the year. Conditions--in terms of both
water supply and water quality--are unprecedented and
serious. Simply put, we face the driest year on record, after
two dry years, which is why Governor Brown proclaimed a
drought State of Emergency on January 17, 2014.
California is a huge state, in which its 38 million
residents depend on a large and unique series of dams,
canals, and waterways administered by hundreds of different
water agencies. It is a complex system--and legislation that
alters it in favor of some interests over others in a
different part of the state, in the middle of this great
water emergency when water managers have tried to plan and
act on current realities--is not helpful.
I write today to express California's strong opposition to
H.R. 3964, which seeks to undermine California's own ability
to address serious water challenges and to erase years of
progress toward a collaborative long-solution to address our
long-term water needs. The bill falsely holds the promise of
water relief that cannot be delivered because in this
drought, the water simply does not exist. It would be much
more prudent to help educate California residents and members
of Congress how dire this situation is, and that we must work
together on the limited items that might be helpful in such
an emergency situation.
The state of California is also focused on finding long-
term solutions that unite us during this challenging time.
State law, enacted in 2009, requires us to achieve the co-
equal goals of both water supply reliability and ecosystem
restoration through the use of sound science. In fact,
earlier this week the state finalized an action plan on
storage, conservation, recycling, water transfers, and all
actions that we can take to make California's water system
more robust. We ask for your help in those constructive,
long-term efforts--where we are trying to bring people
together around solutions.
The choices we face in this drought are extraordinary.
Rarely are we forced to simultaneously confront water
allocations this critically low, Delta salinity conditions
this uniquely challenging, and the difficulty of moving water
around the state due to low reservoir levels.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 3964
and instead ask Congress to join us in supporting consensus-
based water solutions that are truly responsive to
California's drought and long-term water needs.
Sincerely,
John Laird,
Secretary for Natural Resources.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
February 5, 2014. Washington, DC.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3964--Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act
(Rep. Valadao, R-California, and 14 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act,
because it would not alleviate the effects of California's
current drought and would disrupt decades of work that
supports building consensus, solutions, and settlements that
equitably address some of California's most complex water
challenges. California is experiencing severe drought
conditions and low reservoir storage. The urgency and
seriousness of the situation requires a balanced approach
that promotes water reliability and ecosystem restoration.
Specifically, H.R. 3964 would undermine years of
collaboration between local, State, and Federal stakeholders
to develop a sound water quality control plan for the Bay-
Delta. And, contrary to current and past Federal reclamation
law that defers to State water law, the bill would preempt
California water law. Moreover, much of what the bill
purports to do could be accomplished through flexibilities in
existing law.
The bill also would reject the long-standing principle that
beneficiaries should pay both the cost of developing water
supplies and of mitigating resulting development impacts, and
would exacerbate current water shortages by repealing water
pricing reforms that provide incentives for contractors to
conserve water supplies.
Finally, H.R. 3964 would repeal the San Joaquin River
Settlement Agreement, which the Congress enacted to resolve
18 years of
[[Page H1618]]
contentious litigation. Full repeal of the settlement
agreement would likely result in the resumption of costly
litigation, creating an uncertain future for river
restoration and water delivery operations for water users on
the San Joaquin River.
Californians are facing significant drought-related
challenges. This is why the President has directed the
Federal agencies to work together to help California and
other impacted States prepare for and lessen the impact of
the drought. Further, it is why the Administration strongly
supports efforts to provide a more reliable water supply for
California and to protect, restore, and enhance the overall
quality of the Bay-Delta environment. The Administration has
taken great strides toward achieving these goals through a
coordinated Federal Action Plan, which has strengthened
collaboration between Federal agencies and the State of
California while achieving results. Unfortunately, H.R. 3964
would undermine these efforts and the progress that has been
made.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
on legislation to address the drought in California and
supports efforts that provide water supplies consistent with
existing law in the most expeditious manner to address the
conditions. These efforts would include reauthorization of
the CALFED Bay-Delta Act, the Secure Water Act, and
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act.
For these reasons, if the President were presented with
H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto
the bill.
34 Californian Evironmental Groups Against H.R. 3964--2-Feb-14
AquAlliance, Butte Environmental Council, CA Save Our
Streams Council, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance, California Striped Bass Association,
California Water Impact Network, Center for Biological
Diversity, Citizens Water Watch of Northern California, Clean
Water Action, Desal Response Group, Earth Law Center,
Environmental Justice--Coalition For Water, Epic Wild
California, Food & Water Watch, Foothill Conservancy, Friends
of the River.
Greatest of the Karuk Tribe, Institute for Fisheries and
Resources, Klamath Riverkeeper, Klower Sherman Island Duck
Hunters Association, Northern California Council Federation
of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's
Associations, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the
Delta, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Santa Clarita
Organization for Planning and the Environment, Sierra Club
California, Sierra Nevada Alliance, Southern California
Watershed Alliance, The Fish Sniffer, Tuolumne River Trust,
Winnemem Wintu Tribe--Middle River People.
____
Testimony of Anthony Willardson, Executive Director,Western States
Water Council, Before the House Committee on Natural
Resources,Subcommittee on Water and Power
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1837--The San Joaquin Valley Water
Reliability Act,June 13, 2010
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Tony Willardson and I am the Executive Director of the
Western States Water Council (WSWC). Our members are
appointed by the Governors of eighteen western states. We are
a nonpartisan government entity serving as an advisory body
on water policy issues, and are very closely affiliated with
the Western Governors' Association (WGA). We appreciate the
opportunity to testify.
Since H.R. 1837 was only recently introduced, the Council
has not had an opportunity to adopt a specifically position
on the legislation. However, I will address general
principles related to federal-state relations that are useful
in evaluating specific legislation--including H.R. 1837--and
other actions addressing the serious water-related challenges
facing the West and the Nation. During the Council's regular
meetings next month, we will have an opportunity to more
fully consider H.R. 1837 and will share any further comments
thereafter.
My testimony today is based specifically on a July 2010
Council policy position entitled, ``A Shared Vision for Water
Planning and Policy,'' as well as a June 2006 WGA Water
Report entitled, Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable
Future, the 2008 WGA ``Next Steps'' Water Report, and ongoing
policy discussions. Our 2010 position and the WGA Water
Reports include a number of policy statements and
recommendations related to federal programs and projects
under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, and which we would
hope would be carefully considered as you evaluate H.R. 1837.
With regard to provisions related to preemption of state
law, the last paragraph of the Council's position related to
A Shared Vision for Water Planning and Policy, states: ``. .
. Nothing in any act of Congress should be construed as
affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere
with the laws of the respective States relating to: (a) water
or watershed planning; (b) the control, appropriation, use,
or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal
or any other purposes, or any vested right acquired therein;
or (c) intending to affect or in any way to interfere with
any interstate compact, decree or negotiated water rights
agreement.''
This language was intentionally patterned after Section 8
of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (and similar Congressional
directives). Any weakening of the deference to state water
law as now expressed in Section 8 is of concern to the
Council--including Section 202 of H.R. 1837. Provisions of
this nature are inconsistent with the policy of cooperative
federalism that has guided Reclamation Law for over a
century, and are a threat to water right and water right
administration in all the Western States.
Recognizing that the ``future growth and prosperity of the
western states depend upon the availability of adequate
quantities of water of suitable quality,'' western governors
created the Council in 1965 to address the need for an
accurate and unbiased appraisal of present and future [water]
requirements . . . and the most equitable means of providing
for . . . such requirements. . . .'' On a west-wide regional
level, the governors charged the Council ``. . . to
accomplish effective cooperation among western states in
planning for programs leading to integrated development by
state, federal and other agencies of their water resources.''
Since its creation, the Council has served as a unified voice
on behalf of western governors on water policy issues.
Over the years, the Council has continually sought to
develop a regional consensus on westwide water policy and
planning issues, including many federal initiatives and
legislation. The Council strives to collectively protect
western states' interests in water, while at the same time
serving to coordinate and facilitate efforts to improve
western water management. With respect to the latter, the
Council and eleven federal agencies have signed a Declaration
of Cooperation creating what we call our Western Federal
Agency Support Team (WestFAST), to increase collaboration on
water issues of mutual concern.
The Council has long recognized the importance of planning
and policy in protecting and wisely managing our water
resources for the benefit of our present and future
generations, including our environment. The water
development, management and protection challenges in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta System are not unique to
California, but are reflected across the West and the Nation.
Similarly, any solution to California's water and
environmental needs (and compliance with state and federal
mandates) affects the rest of the West to a greater or lesser
extent. Perhaps this is best illustrated by California's
physical dependence not only on the waters of northern and
central California, but also the Colorado River Basin, shared
by six other basin states.
In recent years there has been a growing debate over
national water policy and the need to elevate water issues as
a national priority. The Council has been and continues to be
actively involved in those policy discussions.
The States are primarily responsible for allocating and
administering rights to the use of water for myriad uses; and
are in the best position to identify, evaluate and prioritize
their needs. States and their political subdivisions share
primary responsibility for planning and managing our Nation's
water resources, both surface and ground water, both quantity
and quality.
2006/2008 Western Governors' Association Water Reports
The WGA's 2006 Water Report declared: ``States have the
primary responsibility for water allocation and management.
They have jurisdiction to sanction both new appropriations
and transfers of existing uses. They also have the primary
responsibility for integrating water quantity allocation and
water quality protection. As a result, states can play a
critical role relating to growth in the West where water is a
scarce resource and competing demands vie for rights to its
use.'' (p. 4)
The WGA's 2008 Next Steps Report reiterated: ``States have
the pivotal role in water planning, as well as allocating and
protecting the resources. But in the West, where the federal
government is a substantial landowner and has a significant
regulatory presence, the federal role is also critical.
Cooperation among the states and the federal government
continues to be vital. To support the state leadership role,
the federal government should help by providing a rational
federal regulatory framework, together with technical and
appropriate financial assistance. . . . Developing optimal
solutions to the challenges . . . will require an integrated
approach and greater partnerships among state, local and
federal agencies. This approach should consider all needs
together, develop effective solutions which are complementary
rather than conflicting, and provide direction for selecting
the most appropriate . . . solutions. (p. I)
2011 WSWC Shared Water Vision Policy Position
The following WSWC recommendations are presented as a guide
for evaluating actions related to federal-state relations and
water resources, including H.R. 1837.
Any vision for any water policy, water plan or planning
process must recognize, defer to and support State, tribal
and local government water plans and planning processes.
Federal legislation should explicitly recognize and provide
support for ongoing watershed efforts in and between the
states, tribes and local entities and closely consult with
the states in the implementation of any new federal
program(s).
Any federal legislation should avoid strategies that
increase mandates on state, tribal and local governments.
[[Page H1619]]
Comprehensive plans developed under state or tribal
leadership with federal assistance should: (a) reduce
inefficiencies caused by project-specific responses to
competing demands; (b) reduce contradictory actions by
multiple state, local and federal agencies; and (c) minimize
hastily conceived reactions to the latest real or perceived
crisis.
Federal agencies should use state water plans: (a) to help
determine water policy and planning priorities that best
align federal agency support to states; (b) to inform
decision making regarding regional water issues; and (c) to
coordinate investment in water infrastructure.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of this
legislation, whose district has been heavily impacted by this manmade
drought.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here today is we have
heard talk for long enough. We have seen negotiation after negotiation,
and the last one that we are asking to go back to happened in the mid-
nineties. There was an agreement made that allowed water to go for the
environment and for agriculture, and now we are not even getting that.
What we are asking for is for a little attention. Many of the viewers
probably don't find this interesting. It is just a bunch of trees, but
these trees are dead. They have been pulled out of the ground.
That probably doesn't mean a lot to the Chair or to a lot of other
people in this room, but these are trees that grow crops. Those crops
create jobs. The people that do those jobs are these people right here.
We hear so many people talk about unemployment insurance. These
people want to work. They want to earn a paycheck. They want to go home
at the end of the day with their money in their pocket and be able to
buy food that is grown around them, natural, good, wholesome American
food. These people do not like standing in line and do not like waiting
for government handouts. They want to work and be productive members of
today's society.
I know that a lot of people watching today will think, well, this is
just a California problem, but this is the food grown in California: 99
percent of the almonds; 99 percent of the artichokes; 99 percent of the
figs; 99 percent of the olives; 99 percent of the pistachios.
So when we talk about helping the people who need help and giving
them the resources to feed their families, if we cut off water to
California, it has a direct impact on the money that they do receive
from the government. Because they aren't working because of the
drought, it makes food more expensive. It limits what they can buy to
feed their families.
Anybody that claims to be helpful to those who need our help the most
and votes against this bill is literally saying, I want to raise the
cost of food for everybody in the United States.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, here we are, day two of the House
Committee on Natural Resources' measures on the floor. Yesterday we
spent the entire afternoon debating, among other things, whether 435
Members of the House were better suited to make decisions about
individual Forest Service ranger District Wildlife Management programs
or units of the National Park Service's motorized recreation
regulations, overturning local managers.
We were told that significant amendments, real amendments about real
issues, like the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, they couldn't be offered because we need to respect the
legislative process.
Are we respecting the legislative process here today? This bill was
introduced last week. No hearings have been held in the committee. No
action was taken by the committee. It was written, introduced, and
brought directly to the floor of the House of Representatives. That is
respect for the legislative process?
Now despite everyone here knowing that we are going to face the worst
drought the American West has seen in a century, the committee of
jurisdiction has failed to hold even one hearing on current conditions.
In case you have missed the news, here it is: California, driest
conditions in over 500 years, extreme drought in 70 percent of the
State. Nevada and Oregon, my home State, severe to extreme drought in
80 percent of the State. Idaho, severe to extreme drought in nearly
half the State.
To be thinking about how we are going to mitigate this, how we are
going to fight the fires, what are we going to do for disaster relief,
shouldn't we be looking at reality as opposed to this piece of
legislative theater? No.
A number of us on the committee have asked for a hearing, a
comprehensive hearing on all the aspects of this drought, and the
majority has yet to respond.
Now, this isn't a joke. It is not something we should be playing
political games with. Seriously. We have empty reservoirs, unemployed
people, yes, tinderbox forests, fallowed fields, and failing fisheries.
That calls on us to be bigger and better than playing these stupid
partisan games. That is what this is.
Just like the bill yesterday, this bill is not a serious effort to
legislate. It is going nowhere. The Governor of California opposes it.
Senator Feinstein opposes it. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico,
and Oregon are all opposed to the provisions overturning State water
law. The party of states' rights overturning State water law? The
nonpartisan 18 Governor-appointed Western States Water Council has
opposed provisions in this bill overturning State water law.
This bill is a chimera, in the real sense of the word. It is a
mythical beast that is part lion, goat, serpent, all in one with the
breath of burning flames. Here it comes. It is ugly, it is scary, but
it is a fiction. It is not something real. In Greek mythology, the
chimera was defeated by a guy named Bellerophon, a great hero--
mythical, but a slayer of beasts. In this case, the U.S. Senate is
going to replace Bellerophon.
This is going nowhere. We are fiddling while our forests are going to
burn this summer.
The only way out of the current drought conditions is to make the
skies open and rain. We aren't making rain today with this bill. We
aren't even making law today with this bill. This is cynical. This is
embarrassing. We should pull this bill from consideration and actually
work on something that will help not only those in California but all
of us impacted in the West by this drought.
Let's hold a hearing on this drought. Let's form a task force and
come up with real bipartisan solutions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member
of the committee who has worked very hard on this legislation in the
last Congress and in this Congress.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California's drought is nature's fault,
but our failure to prepare for it is our fault.
In California, the ruling Democrats have not only obstructed the
construction of new dams for the past 35 years but they have also
actively sought to tear down existing ones. They have substituted
conservation for desperately needed storage, and now that we face
drought, we find that our few reservoirs are empty, and our
conservation options are already exhausted.
Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre-feet of
water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of
the delta smelt. Mr. Chairman, 800,000 acre-feet--enough for 4 million
Californians--was deliberately drained from our now empty reservoirs
just several months ago, knowing that that water was desperately needed
to support the threatened human population. Part of that water was
taken from Central Valley farmers, who now face economic extinction.
This bill corrects these tragic policies.
It is true, we cannot make it rain, but we can take measures to stop
this lunacy, increase storage capacity, reinforce existing water
rights, and ensure that we never again must face a crisis of this
magnitude.
This bill allows for the expansion of Lake McClure by 70,000 acre-
feet. It gives local water agencies the ability to store additional
water at New Melones. It sets deadlines for additional storage. It
authorizes local water districts to partner with the Federal Government
to expedite expansion of existing reservoirs and construction of new
ones, and it reverses
[[Page H1620]]
the policies that put the delta smelt ahead of the needs of thousands
of farmworkers and millions of consumers.
Now, the people responsible for these policies say that this steals
water from northern California. It does not. This is only water that
would otherwise be lost to the Pacific Ocean. This bill restores the
bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that guarantees the delta the water that it
needs and grants a portion of any excess to the Central Valley. This
historic accord was broken when Central Valley water was expropriated
for the delta smelt. This bill restores that accord while making
provisions to increase the overall supply.
The other outlandish charge is that this measure overrides State
water rights. It does exactly the opposite. It specifically protects
State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local,
State, or Federal.
We have listened to the environmental left for 40 years, and this is
where it has gotten us. It is time to reject these voices and return to
the commonsense and proven policies of abundance that produced the
prosperity that we once enjoyed.
{time} 1515
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for
giving me an opportunity to speak on this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill despite my
reservations about the bill's prospects in the Senate. Over the years,
I have supported a number of the provisions and goals within this
legislation, but many of them will not offer much, if any, immediate
relief unless we see Biblical proportions of rainfall taking place in
California during the next 6 weeks.
As California is in the midst of the worst drought on record,
reservoirs are at record lows, and we have 13 percent of our average
snow pack, people in my district deserve an effort that deals with the
current realities that can offer help.
No one has done more over 30 years working in Sacramento and in
Washington than I have to provide water not only for our valley but for
the entire State, and to ensure that we have a long-term supply.
Unfortunately, too many folks on both sides of the aisle have kicked
this can down the road.
As much as I think a number of reforms in this bill are long overdue
and some of the policy decisions have increased, frankly, the damage of
the current drought conditions, we all have to recognize that in
California and in Western States today, we are in a triage situation.
There are many things that we must do in the long term to increase
our water supply and fix our broken water system in California. But,
immediately, we have to figure out how we can move water, the scarce
resource where it is, if, in fact, we do get some additional rainfall.
This is not about political points. It is about mitigating the human
impact of people--people--living in 17 water districts that in 30 to 60
days will no longer be able to provide drinking water for themselves.
New ideas, new and immediate relief should be offered, not a rehashing
of the old political battles.
Last week, we saw what can happen in California when the entire
valley delegation, working together on a bipartisan basis with Senators
Feinstein and Boxer, asked the Bureau of Reclamation to honor the
carryover water that had been provided by those farmers who saved it
last year. In fact, we were able to maintain that water this year. It
is a lifeline. The Bureau and the administration heard our united calls
loud and clear, and they made a fair decision to allow farmers in the
valley to keep water that otherwise would have been confiscated.
We need more of these kinds of efforts, which is why I offered an
amendment yesterday to create a joint committee to bring us together to
deal with these short and long-term challenges. This effort is
important since right now we seem to be talking past one another and
feuding in editorial pages across the State rather than finding the
common ground that we need.
Although leadership chose not to bring my amendment up for a vote, I
think we have to be open to getting down to brass tacks at some point
in time, because it is the only way we are going to solve these
problems--on a bipartisan basis. Solutions to our water problems are
not and should not be partisan. Traditionally, they have been regional,
and I can tell you where all the political fault lines lie. They are
deep, and they are historic. It is time for cooler heads to prevail.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COSTA. This is not about political points. It is about people who
could lose their jobs in the drought. It is about the dairy producer
who might soon have to consider selling the dairy their grandfather
started. It is about farmworkers who might soon find themselves in food
lines instead of helping produce some of the most productive crops in
the world. It is about the children of migrant workers who might soon
have to leave their school because their parents have to look for work
elsewhere.
In the coming days, we will be introducing legislation. I hope we can
engender some bipartisan support. At the end of the day, that is what
it is going to take to solve the water problems in California.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another
member of the Natural Resources Committee and a Californian.
Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be able to rise in support of Mr. Valadao's bill, a
bipartisan measure it appears, and I am glad for that. We are able to
work together as neighbors, northern California and central California,
to overcome the overreaching environmental restrictions that this bill
seeks to do. It has diverted so much water away from San Joaquin Valley
families for their farms, away from agriculture, away from productive
use, in favor of a 3-inch fish.
Title IV of this measure ensures that northern California's cities
and farmers maintain their first right to water from the area of
origin, the river in its area, which runs through their communities.
I am open to working with anyone at any time who has a realistic plan
to address our historic droughts. The minority has offered amendments
that would do nothing to address this crisis. Indeed, their proposals
would only put more roadblocks and more red tape between Californians
and the water they need.
We see plenty of potential for projects that could happen, such as
Sites Reservoir in my neighborhood in northern California; possibly the
raising of Shasta Dam and other projects would be very viable. Indeed,
if you look at the graph here, there is much potential that could be
realized when 76 percent of the water that comes into the delta flows
straight out the Pacific. Only 24 percent actually either stays in the
delta or goes south of the massive amount of water that comes into the
delta initially.
The potential there for storing more water to have more available for
everybody, whether it is farms, cities or environmental use, can be
realized by building projects and by removing the roadblocks that are
unnecessarily put there by bureaucracy or politics. We need to have a
much better atmosphere of cooperating in this time of drought and
putting our efforts forward to truly help Californians.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill today to take that
step. Moses parted the Red Sea. I think we need to have somebody that
can part the red tape that has held California up for so many years for
building the water supply it needs.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California, Congressman Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, a bill that
would destroy jobs, does nothing to address the real problem, the
drought, and ignores more than 20 years of established science.
What does the bill do? Will this bill help alleviate the drought? No.
Even if
[[Page H1621]]
we pumped as much water as possible, Central Valley farmers still
wouldn't have enough. There simply isn't enough water to go around.
We are in an extreme drought, the worst in the last century. You can
look at these photographs and see the snow pack last year versus the
snow pack this year. We are in bad straits, and it is a drought. It is
not a manmade problem, it is a drought.
Will this bill kill jobs? Yes. The delta supports thousands of jobs
in farming, fishing and tourism and has an economic output of more than
$4 billion a year. This bill puts those jobs in jeopardy. Will this
bill harm drinking water that millions of people rely on? Yes. When
clean water is pumped south, the level of saltwater in the delta
increases. People can't drink seawater.
The entire State of California is in a drought. You saw it in today's
USA Today. There are towns without water. There are more towns in line
to lose all the water they have, and it is not due to a lack of pumping
because of a ``little fish.'' It is due to the lack of snow and the
lack of rain.
Now, I know this is personal for many of my colleagues. It is
personal for me, too. Many of the towns that I represent are running
out of water. My home town is rationing water--65 gallons per person
per day. It is a real, real serious problem.
I understand the concerns of the Central Valley farmers. Ag is big in
my district, too, and this drought is hurting my constituents, as well.
Because of these dry conditions, grapevines will experience an early
bud this year, and without water to protect the early bud from the
frost, we have no crops--out of business.
It is a drought that is causing the problem. Proponents of this bill
say those who oppose it care more about fish than people. These
comments cheapen the debate. They insult the intelligence of
Californians and are not based on facts. As UC-Berkeley professor of
agriculture and resource economics stated in the paper today, Michael
Hanemann, he said that you can kill every fish in the delta and you
still would have a real problem.
Simply put, this bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to
use this drought as an excuse to pump water from other users and to do
so with zero regard for the people who depend on that water for their
livelihoods. It would be more productive for this body to join in a
rain dance on the floor today than to pass this bill. Our people--our
constituents--deserve better than this politically driven bill. They
deserve solutions. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to another gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a former
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act.
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again and expecting different results.
That just about sums up California's water policy today. Time and
time again, we have let Californians down by diverting water away from
our communities because of Federal practices based on unfair
priorities.
California is headed toward an economic calamity unless meaningful
action is taken. Ongoing drought conditions combined with regulatory
restrictions have placed a tremendous strain on California water
supplies. Today, we are offering a first step to a solution to the
devastating drought that California is facing.
This is not just a California problem. The Central Valley of
California produces a significant amount of our Nation's crops. The
devastation caused by this drought will reverberate through the country
in the form of soaring food prices.
Water officials across the State are taking responsible steps to ramp
up conservation efforts and stretch every drop of water that we do
have. Unfortunately, Congress and our Federal regulatory agencies have
failed to take a similar approach during these trying times. With our
State facing an unprecedented water shortage, it is time for Congress
to end the regulatory restrictions that are outdated and ineffective.
Like many Californians, I am tired of seeing millions and millions of
gallons of water that could go to the people of California instead
being dumped in the Pacific Ocean because of Federal regulations that
punish families, farmers and the economy. It has been mentioned here
just last year that 800,000 acre feet of water was flushed in the ocean
during unprecedented rains. We should never be wasting that amount of
water when people are suffering from a drought.
Today, the House can change that equation, restore balance between
protecting the environment and provide water to the people who need it.
I want to thank and commend my colleague, David Valadao, for his
passion and leadership on this issue. He has been here only a short
time, but he is already making a tremendous impact on the Central
Valley.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire the length of time remaining on both
sides, please.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Washington has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California, Congressman Ami Bera.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against
this bill, and here is why. This bill does nothing to create additional
water supplies. The water that we have already lost, we can't get that
back. What we need to do is look at ways to better manage the water we
have and look at ways to better conserve that water.
We are ready to do this. We are ready to work with our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle as Californians. This isn't about Democrats
versus Republicans. We can't pit one community against another. You are
talking about families.
This is a picture of Folsom Lake in my district; 500,000 residents in
our community rely on water from Folsom Lake for drinking water.
It is not about a little fish. It is about when a child goes to turn
on their tap they get clean water coming out of it.
This should be under water, and if you want to understand how bad it
is, let's look at this picture. This is the wet side of Folsom dam.
Where is the water? This bill takes water where it doesn't exist. You
can't move water if it doesn't exist.
So we stand ready to work with our colleagues in both Houses and
across the aisle to look at better ways for us to manage water, better
ways for us to predict and forecast weather, if you are going to have a
dry season, to protect that water, and better ways to serve all of
California's communities.
It can't be northern California versus southern California versus
central California. It has got to be Californians working together.
Let's solve this. Let's work together, and let's create a brighter
future for California by managing our water together.
{time} 1530
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), another former
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill to
ensure again that the House takes the lead in taking action about this
big crisis that we are having in California's Central Valley.
This measure puts a number of commonsense ideas on the table to
alleviate the severity of today's drought. There is need for a Federal
response, because California has a crosscutting network of both State
and Federal water projects. With the passage of this bill, I hope the
Senate will finally come to the table. If you don't like our idea, come
up with one of your own.
We have to have storage. We have to have conveyance. We need to plan
for the future. There are times when we have wet years, but if we don't
store the water, we don't have it for drought years. It is common
sense, and it should be bipartisan and it should be bicameral.
What I am most proud about on this bill is that you actually have
Members from different regions of the State that
[[Page H1622]]
have come together and said the time is now to finally come together on
a solution for what we have and what we are facing today in
California's Central Valley.
I am thankful to Mr. Valadao for not only bringing this bill up, but
for also including my provisions which will create some more water
storage, including Los Vaqueros and Exchequer and streamlining
construction projects.
This bill also includes two of my bills: H.R. 2705, seeking to
protect native salmon and steelhead on the Stanislaus River; and H.R.
2554, which would allow 100,000 new acre-feet of storage on New Melones
reservoir.
We can do simple things to conserve more water. These two measures
produce more water and alleviate pressure on supplies, and at no cost
to the taxpayer.
Yesterday the Senate passed the farm bill, which we passed here last
week. Without water, in California, having a farm bill doesn't matter a
whole lot if you can't plant the crops that feed the rest of the
Nation.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. The time is now to have a
real water solution. Again, if you don't like this one, then come up
with one of your own. Let's have some water storage. Let's actually
have a dialogue, but let's not shut down residents of the Central
Valley or drinking water across the State.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it is proper to ask you
a question, but is this February 2? I am reminded of the movie
``Groundhog Day.'' We continue to repeat what happened yesterday and
the year before. This is a repetition of a bill that came to the floor
2 years ago. It was a bill that had a lot of different pieces to it but
was very, very simple in what it accomplished, or attempted to
accomplish, and that was to take water from someone--the environment,
fish, and the delta, farmers, communities, Contra Costa County, the
East Bay of San Francisco--and deliver it to someone else. That would
be the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. That was 2 years
ago. It must be February 2. It must be Groundhog Day because we are
doing it all over again. Whatever little whistles and bells and bows
you want to put on it, this is essentially a theft of water from
someone to give to somebody else. Plain and simple, that is what it is
about.
In this case, the water is going to be stolen--and I use that word
because that is accurate--from the delta, from the environment, San
Francisco Bay, from the salmon, which is a huge industry in California,
all the way up the coast to Oregon, to be given to the largest single-
water district in the Nation. A district that, by its contract with the
Federal Government, is specifically set to take shortages in their
water when there is a drought. If this bill becomes law, that won't be
the case. They will get the water and someone else won't.
Okay. We have seen this show before. We also saw before that this
type of legislation, as does this bill, overturns the California
constitution, pushes it out of the way, and all this is done by folks
who normally call themselves State righters.
Well, this is the biggest grab of power by the Federal Government on
water anywhere in the history of reclamation law dating back to 1904.
Never before has the Federal Government made such an attempt to grab
the water rightfully belonging to a State and saying, in this case,
California, you are going to use that water as seen fit by the farm
bill.
Current water law and current law and practices for a century and
more have been the opposite. This doesn't solve the problem. We have
got a real problem. These have been seen before and they are going to
have to be seen over and over, because that was a year ago. We turn it
upside right. Whatever, it is a lot of snow; right? That was a year
ago, snow in the Sierras. That is this year, no snow.
And by the way, the Central Valley looks pretty much like a desert--
not just the San Joaquin Valley, but the whole valley.
We have got a problem. We have a very real problem. We really need a
real solution. This bill isn't a solution. This bill is a call to arms.
This bill is the clarion call of yet one more battle in the great
California water war, and we are all veterans of that war. My
colleagues over here on the Republican aisle, my colleagues over here
on the Democratic aisle, we are veterans of the water war.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't solve the problem of California.
There are solutions available. We really need to get to them. We really
need to sit down and work with a bill that passed the House and the
Senate and was signed by the President less than 2 weeks ago, the
omnibus bill.
In that omnibus bill there is a restoration, a reauthorization of the
Federal drought emergency program that has some 16, 17 different
provisions that provide for specific things that we should be funding.
There's no money in this bill for funding. We are going to have to fund
this. This is a Westwide problem, a problem that reaches across many,
many States, and it is going to take all of us working together to help
each individual State, each community, and every water district deal
with a very real problem. It is a battle. It is a call to arms. Get to
your barricades. Pull out the old weapons. We really need a sensible
solution here, and, unfortunately, this bill simply doesn't do it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of
the legislation that passed this House in a bipartisan way last time,
which this bill emulates.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this is about 40 years of policies that
passed out of this body that took water from our region and sent it out
to the ocean. That is what this debate is about. So the inconvenient
truth for the folks on the left is that their 40 years of policies have
resulted in people running out of water.
One of the times they stole water was in 1992. After that, we had
what were called the Bay-Delta Accord, State-Federal partnership. That
was the last time we were supposed to give up water. It codified into
law that agreement.
So the gentleman was talking about stealing water, they are very good
at stealing water. At the time they stole water last time, they said
the accord was going to be the last time we were going to have water
stolen from us. That was in 1994. But water continues to be stolen.
Now there seems to be this misunderstanding about how the system
works. L.A., Hollywood, San Francisco, it is a desert. They don't have
water. They conveniently get their water from the Colorado River or
from the Yosemite Valley. They ignore all environmental rules, but they
make our people who live in the San Joaquin Valley live by the rules
that they don't want to live by. That is the reality.
So we have these projects that are built for 5 years of storage and
movement of water. So you can see when we had a drought in 1997 and
1991 and 2009, these were the allotments at those times. Last year, we
actually didn't have a real bad drought. Look at the allocation. So the
system simply isn't being used. All the aqueducts and all the dams that
were constructed--led by Democrats, of all people, Franklin Roosevelt,
John F. Kennedy.
John F. Kennedy said this:
This is a fast trip, but if it had no other benefit than to
permit us to look at this valley and others like it across
the country, where we can see the greenest and richest earth,
producing the greatest and richest crops in the country, and
then a mile away, see the same earth and see it brown and
dusty and useless, and all because there is water in one
place and there isn't in another.
President Kennedy had the foresight to construct these projects that
now, after 40 years of bad policies by the left, they have run the
State out of water. They have run the State out of water.
Meanwhile, they talk about killing the fish. Well, why are they
killing the fish? Because all of these cities that most on the left
represent dump their sewage into the delta. That kills the fish. So
stop dumping the sewer water in the delta if you care about the fish.
If you care about the fish, give up your water in Yosemite National
Park and let that water go out to the delta to save the fish.
Mr. Chairman, the time for stealing water has ended, and that is what
this bill does.
[[Page H1623]]
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This debate, Mr. Chairman, is very interesting. And what we are
presenting here today and what is being presented by my California
colleagues is, from their point of view, a solution to a problem caused
by a drought and caused by regulatory action in the State of
California.
I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up--
virtually everybody has said this. I know my colleague, Mr. Garamendi,
said something that I will allude to in a moment. Mr. Costa said
something about that. The ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee said something about what I am going to say, and, I dare say,
the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano) said the same thing.
The thread of what they all said is that there are solutions, and we
need to work together. We need to find these solutions, to which our
side says fine, this is our solution. We recognize you may not like it.
We recognize that. But we also have one other point that we need to
recognize, and that is the genius of our Founding Fathers. They created
two branches of the legislative branch, the Congress: the House, in
which we have the privilege of serving, and the Senate.
I made the observation in my opening statement that the Senate has
not acted on any water bill laws at all. Well, finally somebody in this
area is catching that message, because the Fresno Bee in California,
which is right in the epicenter, if you will, of the San Joaquin
Valley, editorialized last week that Senator Feinstein must step up and
lead on the drought. What that means, of course, is step up and write a
piece of legislation. I have heard my colleagues say we are working on
a piece of legislation, maybe by next week.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point. This is very specific.
Introducing a piece of legislation is not legislating. Legislating is
when you pass a piece of legislation out of your respective House, and
I think that is what the Fresno Bee is saying right here when they tell
Senator Feinstein and others that they need to step up on this and pass
some legislation.
Listen, I am sure that legislation will be different than this. We
have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is
fine. I can take it, and, I dare say, my California colleagues can take
it, too, and then we can work out the difference. But we don't know
what your position is.
{time} 1545
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good piece of legislation. The last
Congress acted on it, and it should act on it again.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 8-\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise again to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3964. This
legislation will do tremendous harm to the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta, an area that I am privileged to represent.
Let's start with the facts. California is in a drought and is
experiencing its driest year on record. Snowpacks are at about 13
percent of what they should be. Regions have set new records for
consecutive dry days during the rainy season. Seventeen communities are
at risk of running out of drinking water within 60 days. The National
Drought Mitigation Center upgraded about 9 percent of California to an
``exceptional drought,'' the organization's most intense level of
drought severity.
Yet, here we are again, spending time on a bill which, according to
its authors, is only a short-term fix for a few communities and does
nothing to help California in its water crisis. California's Natural
Resources Secretary John Laird said that H.R. 3964 ``falsely holds the
promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because in this
drought, the water simply does not exist.'' Let me repeat that: ``the
water simply does not exist.''
I know that the other side is going to vote unanimously for this
bill, so I ask them to look and see what is inside of it. It is not in
your interest. This takes away states' rights. This doesn't weigh a
state's protections.
I ask people that live in the Great Lakes area and people that live
in the Florida Everglades area: pay attention. This is a Federal
precedent. It allows the Federal Government to come and take your
water. Is that what you want? I don't think so.
So I ask the Members of the other side of the aisle, please consider
what this bill contains, please vote the right way. We should be
addressing water efficiency, storage, reuse and recycling, water
management, innovative water projects, and a long-term approach to
water shortages.
All H.R. 3964 ensures is that more water is shipped out of the delta,
turning this precious estuary into a salty, stagnant marsh, devastating
local economies, and costing the delta region thousands of jobs.
We should stand united in preventing this legislation from ever
becoming law. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3964.
The CHAIR. Members are advised to address their comments to the Chair
and not to others in the second person.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to remarks that the previous
speaker from California made about the potential danger in this bill as
they relate to water rights in other States.
What the gentleman was alluding to is absolutely incorrect because
the language in this bill is very specific; it is very specific as it
relates to California.
We went through this process in the last Congress when we went
through hearings because other States--my State included--was very,
very concerned that whatever preemption had to do with water here would
affect other States. Last year in this bill, the language is very, very
specific: it does not apply to other States; it is California-centric
only.
So I want to make that point, Mr. Chairman.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of my
friend if she has any more speakers; and, if not, if she is prepared to
close, her side is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We have no more speakers, and I am prepared to
close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In that case, I reserve the balance of my
time so you can close, and we will have one final speaker.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation about what is good
and what is not good for my great State of California.
We continue to stress we need to work together. Mr. Bera said that.
Mr. Denham says create your own.
Well, I thought this was the House of the people and that we are
supposed to be working together. That is why we have such a low ranking
in the view of the American public--we continually fight against each
other.
We need to sit in dialogue and be able to converse--at least agree on
things that are necessary--to be able to help our country back on its
feet instead of fighting over what is not necessarily fightable about.
Mr. Hastings, the chairman, talked about the resolutions of past
legislation. Like anything else, we don't get information about many of
the bills until last minute. I cannot get any hearings on some of my
bills, and neither can some of my members get hearings in the
subcommittee or the full committee for being able to address some of
these issues that have come up on water.
In summary, we have, of course, this bill that repeals historic
California water rights; overturns 20 years of environmental and
conservation protections; ignores best available science; repeals the
court ordered San Joaquin
[[Page H1624]]
Restoration Settlement Act; preempts California State law; and creates
no new water.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a Statement of Administration
Policy:
The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the
Emergency Water Delivery Act, because it would not alleviate
the effects of California's current drought and would disrupt
decades of work that supports building consensus, solutions,
and settlements that equitably address some of California's
most complex water challenges. California is experiencing
severe drought conditions and low reservoir storage. The
urgency and seriousness of the situation requires a balanced
approach that promotes water reliability and ecosystem
restoration.
It ends with:
For these reasons, if the President were presented with
H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very
dangerous precedent for not only my State of California but for the
rest of the Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy),
the majority whip.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman
Valadao, Congressman Nunes, and all of the delegation for their work
when it comes to water.
The news from California is not bright. The current news: our drought
is the worst in a century. Governor Brown has declared a state of
emergency because of the drought. Our water storage is at near empty.
Farmland is going fallow. Drinking water is threatened. The State
actually says in its latest report that 17 communities can go dry in 4
months. In the absence of God our options are limited to ease this
pain. It didn't have to be this way. But why are we here today and why
are we debating this bill?
Well, without action farms are going to go fallow. So what does that
mean for the rest of the Nation? A lot of people don't look at what
happens throughout California and the Central Valley. Most of the
produce is produced there for the Nation and the world. If you just
look at a few: 94 percent of all tomatoes, 93 percent of all broccoli,
89 percent of all carrots, 78 percent of all lettuce. So that means
prices will go up.
It also means you are going to buy that produce somewhere else. You
are going to buy it overseas: maybe China, maybe Mexico. What about the
food safety? More importantly, what about those jobs? What about those
workers?
Just a few short years ago, unemployment in some of these cities were
40 percent. It is already more than 10. The worst part of all this is
it didn't have to be this way. We could plan for it.
I have heard colleagues talk about this, Mr. Chairman, that back in
1994 we actually had a bipartisan agreement: the Bay-Delta Accord. It
was more than just Republicans and Democrats agreeing. It was
environmentalists, farmers, water users. Everybody came to an
agreement. But that bond was broken.
The reason we debate this is water is so precious. Most of the
snowpack comes from the north and travels down to the south. We have a
State water project that--which is a little ironic--Governor Brown,
when his father was Governor built more than 50 years ago. There have
always been allocations to send it down south. This year they made
history. In the history of the water project, the allocation is zero--
zero.
When you are growing up you study history. There are always those
Aesop's Fables. Do you remember Aesop? He was that slave in ancient
Greece that would tell these tales to teach about a moral lesson.
One of those fables talked about the ant and the grasshopper, where
the ant during summertime, because he knew winter would come, would go
out and work hard and store food for the winter. Not the grasshopper.
He would be idle out there in the summer enjoying life, and hopefully
nothing bad ever happened.
Well, over the years, government regulation has made it harder.
Government regulation has changed the Bay-Delta Accord. It is safe to
say, environmentalists have sued. Environmentalists have decided that
fish are more important than those who are unemployed; that maybe they
come before the individual.
What does that mean? Since 2007, the State Water Project has lost 2.6
million acre feet because of these policies. Now, what does that mean,
2.6 million acre feet? That means that is enough for the annual water
needs of every resident in Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago combined.
Where did that water go? Out to the ocean. Why would we send it out
to the ocean when we could store it for the drought that we knew would
happen?
There is nothing that illustrates this broken system more than just 3
years ago. You have all seen those photos that people have shown down
here on TV of California when it had a snowpack and California today
when it is all dry. Just 3 years ago, do you know what that snowpack
was? More than 170 percent. Boy, that would be a good year to be an
ant, that would be a good year to send it down, that would be a good
year to store for today so those communities would not go dry or that
land would not go fallow. That wasn't the case. Do you know what the
allocation was when we had 170 percent of snowpack? Eighty percent.
Do you know what is unjust in all of this? This year when we get zero
percent, or when we got 80 percent of allocation, the bill was always
the same: you paid 100 percent, regardless of what allocation you got.
What about property rights? What about responsibility? What about a
broken system?
So what does this bill actually do? Well, first and foremost, it puts
families before fish. It goes back to an agreement that everybody
agreed upon, and it moves us in a place where we can prepare.
Standing defenselessly in the face of future droughts is not a noble
gesture. It is actually insanity.
Today, this House will act again, because we would not be in the
dryer place that we are today had the Senate taken up the bill we acted
on in the last Congress. Why? Because this House believes and
understood and learned the lessons of the fables before--that we
prepare. But the Senate, in the grasshopper style, stood idly by.
Our Senators--California is pretty powerful in the Senate. Mr.
Chairman, I will say California has two Senators that are chairs of
committees. There was an opportunity to act.
What is unique in this form of government and what we have, the
greatest in the world, we have two Houses. It doesn't mean both Houses
have to agree at the very beginning. It does mean that you take action
and show where you stand, just like the House did 2 years ago. The
Senate took no stance, so how do we know where they stand?
Well, we will act again. The Senate needs to act, show us where they
stand, go to conference, and stand up for the families of California.
This has gone on too long. We do not have to be in the situation we
stand in today. There are families that did not have to be unemployed
had we acted in the Senate, based upon what we did. There are
communities that would not have had to go dry had we acted before.
So enough of rhetoric, enough of the fights; the time is now. As the
Sun sets today, a bill will be out of this House, but still nothing is
even introduced in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I implore, don't make California hurt anymore.
Mr. HASTINGS OF Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
{time} 1600
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-34. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3964
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H1625]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery
Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
Sec. 101. Amendment to purposes.
Sec. 102. Amendment to definition.
Sec. 103. Contracts.
Sec. 104. Water transfers, improved water management, and conservation.
Sec. 105. Fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.
Sec. 106. Restoration fund.
Sec. 107. Additional authorities.
Sec. 108. Bay-Delta Accord.
Sec. 109. Natural and artificially spawned species.
Sec. 110. Authorized service area.
Sec. 111. Regulatory streamlining.
Sec. 112. Warren Act contracts.
Sec. 113. Additional Warren Act contracts.
Sec. 114. Pilot Program to Protect Native Anadromous Fish in the
Stanislaus River.
Sec. 115. San Luis Reservoir.
TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION
Sec. 201. Repeal of the San Joaquin River settlement.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Implementation of restoration.
Sec. 205. Disposal of property; title to facilities.
Sec. 206. Compliance with applicable law.
Sec. 207. Compliance with Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
Sec. 208. No private right of action.
Sec. 209. Implementation.
Sec. 210. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of
construction costs.
Sec. 211. Repeal.
Sec. 212. Water supply mitigation.
Sec. 213. Additional Authorities.
TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Sec. 301. Repayment contracts and acceleration of repayment of
construction costs.
TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
Sec. 401. Water rights and area-of-origin protections.
Sec. 402. Sacramento River settlement contracts.
Sec. 403. Sacramento River Watershed Water Service Contractors.
Sec. 404. No redirected adverse impacts.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Precedent.
Sec. 502. No effect on Proclamation of State of Emergency.
Sec. 503. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
TITLE I--CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELIABILITY
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO PURPOSES.
Section 3402 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4706) is amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by striking the period at the end;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) to ensure that water dedicated to fish and wildlife
purposes by this title is replaced and provided to Central
Valley Project water contractors by December 31, 2018, at the
lowest cost reasonably achievable; and
``(h) to facilitate and expedite water transfers in
accordance with this Act.''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION.
Section 3403 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4707) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) the term `anadromous fish' means those native stocks
of salmon (including steelhead) and sturgeon that, as of
October 30, 1992, were present in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and ascend those rivers
and their tributaries to reproduce after maturing in San
Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean;'';
(2) in subsection (l), by striking ``and,''
(3) in subsection (m), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) the term `reasonable flows' means water flows capable
of being maintained taking into account competing consumptive
uses of water and economic, environmental, and social
factors.''.
SEC. 103. CONTRACTS.
Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4708) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``limitation on contracting
and contract reform'' and inserting ``contracts''; and
(2) by striking the language of the section and by adding:
``(a) Renewal of Existing Long-Term Contracts.--Upon
request of the contractor, the Secretary shall renew any
existing long-term repayment or water service contract that
provides for the delivery of water from the Central Valley
Project for a period of 40 years.
``(b) Administration of Contracts.--Except as expressly
provided by this Act, any existing long-term repayment or
water service contract for the delivery of water from the
Central Valley Project shall be administered pursuant to the
Act of July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483).
``(c) Delivery Charge.--Beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, a contract entered into or renewed
pursuant to this section shall include a provision that
requires the Secretary to charge the other party to such
contract only for water actually delivered by the
Secretary.''.
SEC. 104. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT, AND
CONSERVATION.
Section 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4709) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting before ``Except as provided herein'' the
following: ``The Secretary shall take all necessary actions
to facilitate and expedite transfers of Central Valley
Project water in accordance with this Act or any other
provision of Federal reclamation law and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``to combination'' and
inserting ``or combination'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(E) The contracting district from which the water is
coming, the agency, or the Secretary shall determine if a
written transfer proposal is complete within 45 days after
the date of submission of such proposal. If such district or
agency or the Secretary determines that such proposal is
incomplete, such district or agency or the Secretary shall
state with specificity what must be added to or revised in
order for such proposal to be complete.
``(F) Except as provided in this section, the Secretary
shall not impose mitigation or other requirements on a
proposed transfer, but the contracting district from which
the water is coming or the agency shall retain all authority
under State law to approve or condition a proposed
transfer.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal
reclamation law--
``(A) the authority to make transfers or exchanges of, or
banking or recharge arrangements using, Central Valley
Project water that could have been conducted before October
30, 1992, is valid, and such transfers, exchanges, or
arrangements shall not be subject to, limited, or conditioned
by this title; and
``(B) this title shall not supersede or revoke the
authority to transfer, exchange, bank, or recharge Central
Valley Project water that existed prior to October 30,
1992.''.
(2) In subsection (b)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``METERING'' and inserting
``MEASUREMENT''; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The contracting district or agency, not including
contracting districts serving multiple agencies with separate
governing boards, shall ensure that all contractor-owned
water delivery systems within its boundaries measure surface
water at the district or agency's facilities up to the point
the surface water is commingled with other water supplies.''.
(3) By striking subsection (d).
(4) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
(5) By amending subsection (e)(as redesignated by paragraph
(4))--
(A) by striking ``as a result of the increased repayment''
and inserting ``that exceed the cost-of-service'';
(B) by inserting ``the delivery of'' after ``rates
applicable to''; and
(C) by striking ``, and all increased revenues received by
the Secretary as a result of the increased water prices
established under subsection 3405(d) of this section,''.
SEC. 105. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT RESTORATION.
Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(106 Stat. 4714) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``is authorized and directed to'' and
inserting ``may'';
(ii) by inserting ``reasonable water'' after ``to
provide'';
(iii) by striking ``anadromous fish, except that such'' and
inserting ``anadromous fish. Such'';
(iv) by striking ``Instream flow'' and inserting
``Reasonable instream flow'';
(v) by inserting ``and the National Marine Fisheries
Service'' after ``United States Fish and Wildlife Service'';
and
(vi) by striking ``California Department of Fish and Game''
and inserting ``United States Geological Survey'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``primary purpose'' and inserting
``purposes'';
(ii) by striking ``but not limited to'' before ``additional
obligations''; and
(iii) by adding after the period the following: ``All
Central Valley Project water used for the purposes specified
in this paragraph shall be credited to the quantity of
Central Valley Project yield dedicated and managed under this
paragraph by determining how the dedication and management of
such water would affect the delivery capability of the
Central Valley Project during the 1928 to 1934 drought period
after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational
requirements imposed by terms and conditions existing in
licenses, permits, and other agreements pertaining to the
Central Valley Project under applicable State or Federal law
existing on October 30, 1992, have been met. To the fullest
extent possible and in accordance with section 3411, Central
Valley Project water dedicated and managed pursuant to this
paragraph shall be reused to fulfill the Secretary's
remaining contractual obligations to provide Central Valley
Project water for agricultural or municipal and industrial
purposes.'';
(C) by amending paragraph (2)(C) to read:
``(C) If by March 15th of any year the quantity of Central
Valley Project water forecasted to be made available to water
service or repayment contractors in the Delta Division of the
Central Valley Project is below 75 percent of the total
quantity of water to be made available
[[Page H1626]]
under said contracts, the quantity of Central Valley Project
yield dedicated and managed for that year under this
paragraph shall be reduced by 25 percent.''.
(2) By adding at the end the following:
``(i) Satisfaction of purposes.--By pursuing the activities
described in this section, the Secretary shall be deemed to
have met the mitigation, protection, restoration, and
enhancement purposes of this title.''.
SEC. 106. RESTORATION FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 3407(a) of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4726) is amended as
follows:
(1) By inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``There is
hereby''.
(2) By striking ``Not less than 67 percent'' and all that
follows through ``Monies'' and inserting ``Monies''.
(3) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Prohibitions.--The Secretary may not directly or
indirectly require a donation or other payment to the
Restoration Fund--
``(A) or environmental restoration or mitigation fees not
otherwise provided by law, as a condition to--
``(i) providing for the storage or conveyance of non-
Central Valley Project water pursuant to Federal reclamation
laws; or
``(ii) the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-293; 96 Stat.
1270); or
``(B) for any water that is delivered with the sole intent
of groundwater recharge.''.
(b) Certain Payments.--Section 3407(c)(1) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``mitigation and restoration'';
(2) by striking ``provided for or''; and
(3) by striking ``of fish, wildlife'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``of carrying out all
activities described in this title.''.
(c) Adjustment and Assessment of Mitigation and Restoration
Payments.--Section 3407(d)(2) of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act is amended by inserting ``, or after October
1, 2015, $4 per megawatt-hour for Central Valley Project
power sold to power contractors (October 2015 price levels)''
after ``$12 per acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for
municipal and industrial water sold and delivered by the
Central Valley Project''.
(d) Completion of Actions.--Section 3407(d)(2)(A) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act is amended by
inserting ``no later than December 31, 2020,'' after ``That
upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, and habitat
mitigation and restoration actions mandated under section
3406 of this title,''.
(e) Report; Advisory Board.--Section 3407 of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Report on Expenditure of Funds.--At the end of each
fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Restoration Fund Advisory Board, shall submit to Congress a
plan for the expenditure of all of the funds deposited into
the Restoration Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such
plan shall contain a cost-effectiveness analysis of each
expenditure.
``(h) Advisory Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the
Restoration Fund Advisory Board (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Advisory Board') composed of 12 members
selected by the Secretary, each for four-year terms, one of
whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The
members shall be selected so as to represent the various
Central Valley Project stakeholders, four of whom shall be
from CVP agricultural users, three from CVP municipal and
industrial users, three from CVP power contractors, and two
at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary and the
Secretary of Commerce may each designate a representative to
act as an observer of the Advisory Board.
``(2) Duties.--The duties of the Advisory Board are as
follows:
``(A) To meet at least semiannually to develop and make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding priorities and
spending levels on projects and programs carried out pursuant
to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
``(B) To ensure that any advice or recommendation made by
the Advisory Board to the Secretary reflect the independent
judgment of the Advisory Board.
``(C) Not later than December 31, 2015, and annually
thereafter, to transmit to the Secretary and Congress
recommendations required under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Not later than December 31, 2015, and biennially
thereafter, to transmit to Congress a report that details the
progress made in achieving the actions mandated under section
3406 of this title.
``(3) Administration.--With the consent of the appropriate
agency head, the Advisory Board may use the facilities and
services of any Federal agency.''.
SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) Authority for Certain Activities.--Section 3408(c) of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of
Water.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts pursuant to Federal reclamation law and this
title with any Federal agency, California water user or water
agency, State agency, or private organization for the
exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and delivery of
nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, fish
and wildlife, and any other beneficial purpose.
``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
deemed to supersede the provisions of section 103 of Public
Law 99-546 (100 Stat. 3051).
``(3) Authority for certain activities.--The Secretary
shall use the authority granted by this subsection in
connection with requests to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water using Central Valley Project
facilities for any beneficial purpose.
``(4) Rates.--The Secretary shall develop rates not to
exceed the amount required to recover the reasonable costs
incurred by the Secretary in connection with a beneficial
purpose under this subsection. Such rates shall be charged to
a party using Central Valley Project facilities for such
purpose. Such costs shall not include any donation or other
payment to the Restoration Fund.
``(5) Construction.--This subsection shall be construed and
implemented to facilitate and encourage the use of Central
Valley Project facilities to exchange, impound, store, carry,
or deliver nonproject water for any beneficial purpose.''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 3408(f) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Interior and Insular Affairs and the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting
``Natural Resources'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, including progress on the plan
required by subsection (j)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``The filing and
adequacy of such report shall be personally certified to the
Committees referenced above by the Regional Director of the
Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.''.
(c) Project Yield Increase.--Section 3408(j) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) is amended as
follows:
(1) By redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as
subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively.
(2) By striking ``In order to minimize adverse effects, if
any, upon'' and inserting ``(1) In general.--In order to
minimize adverse effects upon''.
(3) By striking ``needs, the Secretary,'' and all that
follows through ``submit to the Congress, a'' and inserting
``needs, the Secretary, on a priority basis and not later
than September 30, 2015, shall submit to Congress a''.
(4) By striking ``increase,'' and all that follows through
``options:'' and inserting ``increase, as soon as possible
but not later than September 30, 2018 (except for the
construction of new facilities which shall not be limited by
that deadline), the water of the Central Valley Project by
the amount dedicated and managed for fish and wildlife
purposes under this title and otherwise required to meet the
purposes of the Central Valley Project including satisfying
contractual obligations. The plan required by this subsection
shall include recommendations on appropriate cost-sharing
arrangements and authorizing legislation or other measures
needed to implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of
this subsection and a description of how the Secretary
intends to use the following options--''.
(5) In subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and construction of
new water storage facilities'' before the semicolon.
(6) In subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end.
(7) In subparagraph (G), by striking the period and all
that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
``; and''.
(8) By inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) Water banking and recharge.''.
(9) By adding at the end the following:
``(2) Implementation of plan.--The Secretary shall
implement the plan required by paragraph (1) commencing on
October 1, 2015. In order to carry out this subsection, the
Secretary shall coordinate with the State of California in
implementing measures for the long-term resolution of
problems in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary.
``(3) Failure of the plan.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal reclamation law, if by September 30,
2018, the plan required by paragraph (1) fails to increase
the annual delivery capability of the Central Valley Project
by 800,000 acre-feet, implementation of any non-mandatory
action under section 3406(b)(2) shall be suspended until the
plan achieves an increase in the annual delivery capability
of the Central Valley Project by 800,000 acre-feet.''.
(d) Technical Correction.--Section 3408(h) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (h)(2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (h)(i)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(e) Water Storage Project Construction.--The Secretary,
acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation,
may partner or enter into an agreement on the water storage
projects identified in section 103(d)(1) of the Water Supply
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law
108-361)(and Acts supplemental and amendatory to the Act)
with local joint powers authorities formed pursuant to State
law by irrigation districts and other local water districts
and local governments within the applicable hydrologic
region, to advance these projects. No additional Federal
funds are authorized for the activities authorized in
sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i), 103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and
103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361. However, each water
storage project under sections 103(d)(1)(A)(i),
103(d)(1)(A)(ii), and 103(d)(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 108-361
is authorized for construction if non-Federal funds are used
for financing and constructing the project.
SEC. 108. BAY-DELTA ACCORD.
(a) Congressional Direction Regarding Central Valley
Project and California
[[Page H1627]]
State Water Project Operations.--The Central Valley Project
and the State Water Project shall be operated pursuant to the
water quality standards and operational constraints described
in the ``Principles for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards
Between the State of California and the Federal Government''
dated December 15, 1994, and such operations shall proceed
without regard to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or any other law pertaining to the
operation of the Central Valley Project and the California
State Water Project. Implementation of this section shall be
in strict conformance with the ``Principles for Agreement on
the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of California and
the Federal Government'' dated December 15, 1994.
(b) Application of Laws to Others.--Neither a Federal
department nor the State of California, including any agency
or board of the State of California, shall impose on any
water right obtained pursuant to State law, including a pre-
1914 appropriative right, any condition that restricts the
exercise of that water right in order to conserve, enhance,
recover or otherwise protect any species that is affected by
operations of the Central Valley Project or California State
Water Project. Nor shall the State of California, including
any agency or board of the State of California, restrict the
exercise of any water right obtained pursuant to State law,
including a pre-1914 appropriative right, in order to
protect, enhance, or restore under the Public Trust Doctrine
any public trust value. Implementation of the ``Principles
for Agreement on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of
California and the Federal Government'' dated December 15,
1994, shall be in strict compliance with the water rights
priority system and statutory protections for areas of
origin.
(c) Costs.--No cost associated with the implementation of
this section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any
Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary basis.
(d) Native Species Protection.--California law is preempted
with respect to any restriction on the quantity or size of
nonnative fish taken or harvested that preys upon one or more
native fish species that occupy the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries or the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Rivers Delta.
SEC. 109. NATURAL AND ARTIFICIALLY SPAWNED SPECIES.
After the date of the enactment of this title, and
regardless of the date of listing, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce shall not distinguish between natural-
spawned and hatchery-spawned or otherwise artificially
propagated strains of a species in making any determination
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) that relates to any anadromous fish species present in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries
and ascend those rivers and their tributaries to reproduce
after maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.
SEC. 110. AUTHORIZED SERVICE AREA.
The authorized service area of the Central Valley Project
shall include the area within the boundaries of the Kettleman
City Community Services District, California, as those
boundaries exist on the date of the enactment of this title.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of October 30, 1992
(Public Law 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600 et seq.), upon enactment
of this title, the Secretary is authorized and directed to
enter into a long-term contract in accordance with the
reclamation laws with the Kettleman City Community Services
District, California, for the delivery of up to 900 acre-feet
of Central Valley Project water for municipal and industrial
use. The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries of the
quantity of water made available pursuant to up to 25 percent
of such total whenever reductions due to hydrologic
circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries of
Central Valley Project water. If any additional
infrastructure or related-costs are needed to implement this
section, such costs shall be the responsibility of the non-
Federal entity.
SEC. 111. REGULATORY STREAMLINING.
(a) Applicability of Certain Laws.--Filing of a Notice of
Determination or a Notice of Exemption for any project,
including the issuance of a permit under State law, related
to any project of the CVP or the delivery of water therefrom
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
shall be deemed to meet the requirements of section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for that project or permit.
(b) Continuation of Project.--The Bureau of Reclamation
shall not be required to cease or modify any major Federal
action or other activity related to any project of the CVP or
the delivery of water there from pending completion of
judicial review of any determination made under the National
Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
(c) Project Defined.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Cvp.--The term ``CVP'' means the Central Valley
Project.
(2) Project.--The term ``project''--
(A) means an activity that--
(i) is undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public
agency, or that requires an issuance of a permit by a public
agency;
(ii) has a potential to result in physical change to the
environment; and
(iii) may be subject to several discretionary approvals by
governmental agencies;
(B) may include construction activities, clearing or
grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and
activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit;
or
(C) as defined under the California Environmental Quality
Act in section 21065 of the California Public Resource Code.
SEC. 112. WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall offer to the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South
San Joaquin Irrigation District (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``districts'') a contract enabling the
districts to collectively impound and store up to 200,000
acre-feet of their Stanislaus River water rights in the New
Melones Reservoir in accordance with the terms and conditions
of sections 1 through 3 of the Act of February 21, 1911 (43
U.S.C. 523-525; commonly known as the ``Warren Act'');
provided that before offering any such contract, the
Secretary has determined that the amount of water to be
impounded and stored under the contract will not directly or
indirectly result in any redirected adverse water supply or
fiscal impacts to any Central Valley Project contractor
related to the Secretary's operation of the Central Valley
Project to meet legal obligations imposed by or through any
State or Federal agency, including but not limited to those
legal obligations emanating from the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), the Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., commonly known as the
``Clean Water Act'' pursuant to the 1977 amendments, Public
Law 95-217), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Cal. Water Code 13000, et seq.).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions of any
contract entered into under subsection (a) shall--
(1) be for a term of not less than 10 years; and (2)
expressly provide that--
(A) the districts may use any water impounded and stored in
the New Melones Reservoir for any legal purpose under
California law, including use within the boundaries of either
district, transfer to and reasonable and beneficial use by a
person or entity not located within the boundaries of either
district, and for instream use in the Stanislaus River, the
San Joaquin River, or the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta;
and
(B) any water impounded and stored by either district shall
not be released or withdrawn if the end of month September
storage level for New Melones Reservoir is projected to be
equal to or below 300,000 acre-feet, but in such event the
impounded and stored water shall be retained in the New
Melones Reservoir for use by the districts in the following
year, subject to the same 300,000 acre-foot minimum storage
requirement, and without additional payment being required.
(c) Conservation Account.--Any water impounded and stored
in the New Melones Reservoir by either district under the
contract shall not be considered or accounted as water placed
in the districts' conservation account, as that account is
defined and explained in the August 30, 1988 Stipulation and
Agreement entered into by and between the Bureau of
Reclamation and the districts.
SEC. 113. ADDITIONAL WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.
(a) ) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall develop and offer to the Calaveras County Water
District (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``CCWD'') a contract enabling the CCWD to impound and store
up to 100,000 acre-feet of their Stanislaus River water
rights in the New Melones Reservoir in accordance with the
terms and conditions of sections 1 through 3 of the Act of
February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 523-525; commonly known as the
``Warren Act''). This stored water may be obtained for use by
CCWD at a point, or points determined convenient to the
District.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions of any
contract entered into under subsection (a) shall--
(1) be for a term of not less than 10 years; and
(2) expressly provide that--
(A) the CCWD may use any water impounded and stored in the
New Melones Reservoir for any legal purpose under California
law, including use within the boundaries of the CCWD,
transfer to and reasonable and beneficial use by a person or
entity not located within the boundaries of CCWD, and for
instream use in the Stanislaus River, the San Joaquin River,
or the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta; and
(B) any water impounded and stored by either district shall
not be released or withdrawn if the end of month September
storage level for New Melones Reservoir is projected to be
equal to or below 300,000 acre-feet, but in such event the
impounded and stored water shall be retained in the New
Melones Reservoir for use by the districts in the following
year, subject to the same 300,000 acre-foot minimum storage
requirement, and without additional payment being required.
SEC. 114. PILOT PROGRAM TO PROTECT NATIVE ANADROMOUS FISH IN
THE STANISLAUS RIVER.
(a) Establishment of Non-native Predator Fish Removal
Program.--The Commissioner and districts, in consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, shall jointly develop and conduct a pilot
non-native predator fish removal program to remove non-native
striped bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black bass,
and other non-native predator fishes from the Stanislaus
River. The pilot program shall--
(1) be scientifically based;
(2) include methods to quantify the number and size of
predator fishes removed each year, the impact of such removal
on the overall abundance of predator fishes, and the impact
of such removal on the populations of juvenile anadromous
fish found in the Stanislaus River by, among other things,
evaluating the number of juvenile anadromous fish that
migrate past the rotary screw trap located at Caswell;
(3) use wire fyke trapping, portable resistance board
weirs, and boat electrofishing, which are
[[Page H1628]]
the most effective predator collection techniques that
minimize affects to native anadromous fish;
(4) be developed, including the application for all
necessary scientific research and species enhancement permits
under section 10(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)), for the performance of the pilot
program, not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act;
(5) be implemented on the first business day of the
calendar year following the issuance of all necessary
scientific research and species enhancement permits needed to
begin the pilot program; and
(6) be implemented for a period of seven consecutive
calendar years.
(b) Management.--The management of the pilot program shall
be the joint responsibility of the Commissioner and the
districts. Such parties shall work collaboratively to insure
the performance of the pilot program, and shall discuss and
agree upon, among other things, changes in the structure,
management, personnel, techniques, strategy, data collection,
reporting and conduct of the pilot program.
(c) Conduct.--
(1) In general.--At the election of the districts, the
pilot program may be conducted by their own personnel,
qualified private contractors hired by the districts,
personnel of, on loan to, or otherwise assigned to the Bureau
of Reclamation, or a combination thereof.
(2) Participation by the bureau of reclamation.--In the
event the districts elect to conduct the program using their
own personnel or qualified private contractors hired by them,
the Commissioner has the option to assign an employee of, on
loan to, or otherwise assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation,
to be present for all activities performed in the field. Such
presence shall insure compliance with the agreed upon
elements specified in subsection (b). The districts shall pay
100 percent of the cost of such participation as specified in
subsection (d).
(3) Timing of election.--The districts shall notify the
Commissioner of their election on or before October 15 of
each calendar year of the pilot program, which election shall
apply to the work performed in the subsequent calendar year.
(d) Funding.--
(1) Annual funding.--The districts shall be responsible for
100 percent of the cost of the pilot program. On or before
December 1 of each year of the pilot program, the
Commissioner shall submit to the districts an estimate of the
cost to be incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation in the
following calendar year, if any, including the cost of any
data collection and posting under subsection (e). If an
amount equal to the estimate is not provided to the
reclamation fund identified in section 3 of the Act of
February 21, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 525), or any other fund as
directed by the Commissioner, by the districts on or before
December 31 of each year, (a) the Bureau of Reclamation shall
have no obligation to conduct the pilot program activities
otherwise scheduled, and (b) the districts shall be
prohibited from conducting any aspect of the pilot program,
until full payment is made by the districts.
(2) Accounting.--On or before September 1 of each calendar
year, the Commissioner shall provide an accounting of the
prior calendar year's expenses to the districts. If the
estimate paid by the districts was less than the actual costs
incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation, the districts shall
have until September 30 of that calendar year to pay the
difference to the reclamation fund. If the estimate paid by
the districts was greater than the actual costs incurred by
the Bureau of Reclamation, then a credit shall be provided to
the districts, which shall be deducted from the estimate
payment the districts must make for the work performed by the
Bureau of Reclamation, if any, in the next calendar year.
(e) Reporting and Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--On or before the 15th day of each month,
the Commissioner shall post on the website of the Bureau of
Reclamation a tabular summary of the raw data collected in
the prior month. (2) REPORT.
(2) Report.--On or before June 30 of the calendar year
following the completion of the program, the Commissioner and
districts shall jointly publish a peer reviewed report that--
(A) discusses the findings and conclusions of the pilot
program;
(B) synthesizes the data collected under paragraph (1); and
(C) makes recommendations for further study and action.
(f) Permits Process.--
(1) Not later than 180 days after filing of an application
by the Commissioner and the districts, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, or both, as appropriate,
shall issue all necessary scientific research and species
enhancement permits under section 10(a)(1) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153(9)(a)(1)), for the performance of
the pilot program.
(2) Any permit application that is not approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Commerce, or both, as
appropriate, for any reason, within 180 days after receiving
the application, shall be deemed approved.
(3) All permits issued shall be in the name of the Bureau
of Reclamation and the districts.
(4) Districts may delegate the authority to administer the
permit authority to any qualified private contractor retained
in accordance with subsection (c).
(5) The pilot program, including amendments thereto by the
appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall constitute a
conservation plan that complies with the requirements of
section 10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)).
(g) NEPA.--Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall not apply
with respect to section 402 and the issuance of any permit
under this subsection during the seven year period beginning
on the date of the implementation of the pilot program.
(h) Restrictions.--Any restriction imposed under California
law on the catch, take, or harvest of any non-native or
introduced aquatic or terrestrial species that preys upon
anadromous fish and that occupies or is found in the
Stanislaus River is hereby void and is preempted.
(i) Definitions.-- For the purposes of this section:
(1) Anadromous fish.--
(A) The term ``anadromous fish'' as applied to the
Stanislaus River and the operation of New Melones--
(i) means those native stocks of salmon (including
steelhead) that--
(I) as of October 30, 1992 were present in and had not been
extirpated from the Stanislaus River, and
(II) which ascend the Stanislaus River to reproduce after
maturing in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean; and
(ii) does not mean any stock, strain or member of American
shad, sockeye salmon, or striped bass.
(B) The definition of anadromous fish provided in section
3403(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public
Law 102-575) shall not apply to the operation of New Melones
Dam and Reservoir, or to any Federal action in the Stanislaus
River.
(2) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
(3) Districts.--The term ``districts'' means the Oakdale
Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation
District.
(4) Pilot program.--The term ``program'' means the pilot
non-native predator removal program established under this
section.
(j) Sunset.--The authorities provided under this section
shall expire seven years after the implementation of the
pilot program.
SEC. 115. SAN LUIS RESERVOIR.
In connection with operations of the Central Valley
Project, California, if San Luis Reservoir does not fill by
the last day of February, the Secretary of the Interior shall
permit any entity with an agricultural water service or
repayment contract for the delivery of water from the Delta
Division or the San Luis Unit to reschedule into the
immediately following contract year (March 1 through the last
day of February) any unused Central Valley Project water
previously allocated for irrigation purposes. If water
remaining in federal storage in San Luis Reservoir on the
last day of February is insufficient to meet all rescheduling
requests, the Secretary shall apportion, based on contract
quantity, among all such contractors that request to
reschedule water all water remaining in San Luis Reservoir on
the last day of February. The Secretary shall thereafter make
all reasonable efforts to make available additional
rescheduled water; provided that such efforts shall not
interfere with the Central Valley Project operations in the
contract year into which Central Valley Project has been
rescheduled.
TITLE II--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION
SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SETTLEMENT.
As of the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary
shall cease any action to implement the Stipulation of
Settlement (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk
Rodgers, et al., Eastern District of California, No. Civ. S-
88-1658 LKK/GGH).
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
Section 10002 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended by striking
``implementation of the Settlement'' and inserting
``restoration of the San Joaquin River''.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
Section 10003 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) The term `Restoration Flows' means the additional
water released or bypassed from Friant Dam to insure that the
target flow entering Mendota Pool, located approximately 62
river miles downstream from Friant Dam, does not fall below
50 cubic feet per second.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) The term `Water Year' means March 1 through the last
day of February of the following Calendar Year, both dates
inclusive.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The term `Critical Water Year' means when the total
unimpaired runoff at Friant Dam is less than 400,000 acre-
feet, as forecasted as of March 1 of that water year by the
California Department of Water Resources.''.
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATION.
Section 10004 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``authorized and directed'' and all that follows through ``in
the Settlement:'' and inserting ``authorized to carry out the
following:'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5);
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(1)''; and
(ii) by striking ``paragraph 13 of the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
[[Page H1629]]
``(2) In each Water Year, commencing in the Water Year
starting on March 1, 2015--
``(A) shall modify Friant Dam operations so as to release
the Restoration Flows for that Water Year, except in any
Critical Water Year;
``(B) shall ensure that the release of Restoration Flows
are maintained at the level prescribed by this part, but that
Restoration Flows do not reach downstream of Mendota Pool;
``(C) shall release the Restoration Flows in a manner that
improves the fishery in the San Joaquin River below Friant
Dam, but upstream of Gravelly Ford in existence as of the
date of the enactment of this part, and the associated
riparian habitat; and
``(D) may, without limiting the actions required under
paragraphs (A) and (C) and subject to subsections 10004(a)(3)
and 10004(l), use the Restoration Flows to enhance or restore
a warm water fishery downstream of Gravelly Ford to and
including Mendota Pool, if the Secretary determines that it
is reasonable, prudent, and feasible to do so; and
``(3) Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this section, the Secretary shall develop and implement,
in cooperation with the State of California, a reasonable
plan, to fully recirculate, recapture, reuse, exchange, or
transfer all Restoration Flows and provide such recirculated,
recaptured, reused, exchanged, or transferred flows to those
contractors within the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and
Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project that relinquished
the Restoration Flows so recirculated, recaptured, reused,
exchanged, or transferred. Such a plan shall address any
impact on ground water resources within the service area of
the Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the
Central Valley Project and mitigation may include ground
water banking and recharge projects. Such a plan shall not
impact the water supply or water rights of any entity outside
the Friant Division, Hidden unit, and Buchanan Unit of the
Central Valley Project. Such a plan shall be subject to
applicable provisions of California water law and the
Secretary's use of Central Valley Project facilities to make
Project water (other than water released from Friant Dam
pursuant to this part) and water acquired through transfers
available to existing south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
contractors.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Mitigation of Impacts.--Prior to October 1, 2015, the
Secretary shall identify--
``(1) the impacts associated with the release of
Restoration Flows prescribed in this part;
``(2) the measures which shall be implemented to mitigate
impacts on adjacent and downstream water users, landowners
and agencies as a result of Restoration Flows prescribed in
this part; and
``(3) prior to the implementation of decisions or
agreements to construct, improve, operate, or maintain
facilities that the Secretary determines are needed to
implement this part, the Secretary shall implement all
mitigations measures identified in subsection (d)(2) before
Restoration Flows are commenced.'';
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(6) in subsection (f), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
all that follows through ``section 10011'' and insert ``this
part'';
(7) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``the Settlement and'' before this part;
and
(B) by striking ``or exchange contract'' and inserting
``exchange contract, or water rights settlement or holding
contracts'';
(8) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``Interim'' in the header;
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``Interim Flows under the Settlement'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows under this part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) in clause (i), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting
``Restoration''; and
(II) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (E);
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``Interim'' and inserting ``Restoration'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(iii) by striking ``(B) exceed'' and inserting ``exceed'';
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Interim'' and inserting
``Restoration''; and
(E) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Claims.--Within 60 days of enactment of this Act the
Secretary shall promulgate a rule establishing a claims
process to address current and future claims including, but
not limited to, ground water seepage, flooding, or levee
instability damages caused as a result of, arising out of, or
related to implementation of subtitle A of title X of Public
Law 111-11.'';
(9) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``the Settlement and parts I and III'' and inserting ``this
part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(iii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``additional amounts authorized to be
appropriated, including the''; and
(II) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(10) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) No Impacts on Other Interests.--No Central Valley
Project or other water other than San Joaquin River water
impounded by or bypassed from Friant Dam shall be used to
implement subsection (a)(2) unless such use is on a voluntary
basis. No cost associated with the implementation of this
section shall be imposed directly or indirectly on any
Central Valley Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the
Buchanan Unit, unless such costs are incurred on a voluntary
basis. The implementation of this part shall not result
directly or indirectly in any reduction in water supplies or
water reliability on any Central Valley Project contractor,
any State Water Project contractor, or any other person or
entity, outside the Friant Division, the Hidden Unit, or the
Buchanan Unit, unless such reductions or costs are incurred
on a voluntary basis.
``(l) Priority.--All actions taken under this part shall be
subordinate to the Secretary's use of Central Valley Project
facilities to make Project water available to Project
contractors, other than water released from the Friant Dam
pursuant to this part.
``(m) In General.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the
Reclamation Act of 1902, except as provided in this part,
including title IV of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys
Water Reliability Act, this part preempts and supersedes any
State law, regulation, or requirement that imposes more
restrictive requirements or regulations on the activities
authorized under this part. Nothing in this part shall alter
or modify the obligations, if any, of the Friant Division,
Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit of the Central Valley Project,
or other water users on the San Joaquin River or its
tributaries, under orders issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act (California Water Code sections 13000 et seq.).
Any such order shall be consistent with the congressional
authorization for any affected Federal facility as it
pertains to the Central Valley Project.
``(n) Project Implementation.--Projects to implement this
title shall be phased such that each project shall follow the
sequencing identified below and include at least the--
``(1) project purpose and need;
``(2) identification of mitigation measures;
``(3) appropriate environmental review; and
``(4) prior to releasing Restoration Flows under this part,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) complete the implementation of mitigation measures
required; and
``(B) complete implementation of the project.''.
SEC. 205. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY; TITLE TO FACILITIES.
Section 10005 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the Settlement
authorized by this part'' and inserting ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'' and
inserting ``The Secretary''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Settlement authorized by this part''
and inserting ``this part''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``through the exercise of its eminent
domain authority''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this
part''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 10009(c)'' and
inserting ``section 10009''.
SEC. 206. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.
Section 10006 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``unless otherwise
provided by this part'' before the period at the end; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, unless otherwise
provided by this part'' before the period at the end;
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 10004'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the Settlement'' and
inserting ``this part''; and
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``, including without limitation to
sections 10004(d) and 10004(h)(4) of this part,'' after
``implementing this part''; and
(B) by striking ``for implementation of the Settlement''.
SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE WITH CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
ACT.
Section 10007 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
(A) by striking ``the Settlement'' and inserting
``enactment of this part''; and
(B) by inserting: ``and the obligations of the Secretary
and all other parties to protect and keep in good condition
any fish that may be planted or exist below Friant Dam
including any obligations under section 5937 of the
California Fish and Game Code and the public trust doctrine,
and those of the Secretary and all other parties under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).''
before ``, provided''; and
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, as provided in the
Settlement''.
[[Page H1630]]
SEC. 208. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
Section 10008(a) of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) by striking ``not a party to the Settlement'' after
``person or entity''; and
(2) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period and
inserting ``unless otherwise provided by this part. Any
Central Valley Project long-term water service or repayment
contractor within the Friant Division, Hidden unit, or
Buchanan Unit adversely affected by the Secretary's failure
to comply with section 10004(a)(3) of this part may bring an
action against the Secretary for injunctive relief or
damages, or both.''.
SEC. 209. IMPLEMENTATION.
Section 10009 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in the header by striking ``; settlement fund'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``the Settlement'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``this part'';
(ii) by striking ``, estimated to total'' and all that
follows through ``subsection (b)(1),''; and
(iii) by striking ``provided however,'' and all that
follows through ``$110,000,000 of State funds'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) In general.--The
Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``Except as provided in the Settlement,
to'' and inserting ``To''; and
(ii) by striking ``this Settlement'' and inserting ``this
part'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``In addition'' through ``however, that
the'' and inserting ``The'';
(B) by striking ``such additional appropriations only in
amounts equal to''; and
(C) by striking ``or the Settlement'' before the period;
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``the Settlement'' and inserting ``this part'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``from the sale of
water pursuant to the Settlement, or''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``the Settlement''
and inserting ``this part'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Settlement and''
before ``this part''; and
(5) by striking subsections (d) through (f).
SEC. 210. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
Section 10010 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(D), by striking ``the Settlement and''
before ``this part''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``the Settlement and''
before ``this part'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3);
(3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``the Settlement'' in
both places it appears and inserting ``this part'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Interim Flows or Restoration Flows,
pursuant to paragraphs 13 or 15 of the Settlement'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows, pursuant to this part'';
(ii) by striking ``Interim Flows or'' before ``Restoration
Flows''; and
(iii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows
or is intended to otherwise facilitate the Water Management
Goal, as described in the Settlement'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``except as provided in paragraph 16(b) of
the Settlement'' after ``Friant Division long-term
contractor''; and
(ii) by striking ``the Interim Flows or Restoration Flows
or to facilitate the Water Management Goal'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows''.
SEC. 211. REPEAL.
Section 10011 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is repealed.
SEC. 212. WATER SUPPLY MITIGATION.
Section 10202(b) of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Interim or
Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Interim or
Restoration Flows authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and
inserting ``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``meet the Restoration
Goal as described in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting
``recover Restoration Flows as described in this part'';
(B) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by striking ``the Interim or Restoration Flows
authorized in part I of this subtitle'' and inserting
``Restoration Flows authorized in this part''; and
(ii) by striking ``, and for ensuring appropriate
adjustment in the recovered water account pursuant to section
10004(a)(5)''.
SEC. 213. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.
Section 10203 of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``section 10004(a)(4)'' and inserting
``section 10004(a)(3)''; and
(B) by striking ``, provided'' and all that follows through
``section 10009(f)(2)''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
TITLE III--REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SEC. 301. REPAYMENT CONTRACTS AND ACCELERATION OF REPAYMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
(a) Conversion of Contracts.--
(1) Not later than 1 year after enactment, the Secretary of
the Interior, upon request of the contractor, shall convert
all existing long-term Central Valley Project contracts
entered under subsection (e) of section 9 of the Act of
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1196), to a contract under
subsection (d) of section 9 of said Act (53 Stat. 1195),
under mutually agreeable terms and conditions.
(2) Upon request of the contractor, the Secretary is
further authorized to convert, not later than 1 year after
enactment, any Central Valley Project long-term contract
entered under subsection (c)(2) of section 9 of the Act of
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1194), to a contract under
subsection (c)(1) of section 9 of said Act, under mutually
agreeable terms and conditions.
(3) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) require the repayment, either in lump sum or by
accelerated prepayment, of the remaining amount of
construction costs identified in the most current version of
the Central Valley Project Schedule of Irrigation Capital
Allocations by Contractor, as adjusted to reflect payments
not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for
ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31,
2015, or if made in approximately equal annual installments,
no later than January 31, 2018; such amount to be discounted
by the Treasury Rate. An estimate of the remaining amount of
construction costs as of January 31, 2015, as adjusted, shall
be provided by the Secretary of the Interior to each
contractor no later than 180 days after enactment;
(B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2),
construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after
the effective date of the converted contract or not reflected
in the schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly
assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more
than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such
amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of
capital costs to the contractors exercising contract
conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If
such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be
repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided
that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a
precedent in any other context; and
(C) provide that power revenues will not be available to
aid in repayment of construction costs allocated to
irrigation under the contract.
(4) All contracts entered into pursuant to paragraph (2)
shall--
(A) require the repayment in lump sum of the remaining
amount of construction costs identified in the most current
version of the Central Valley Project Schedule of Municipal
and Industrial Water Rates, as adjusted to reflect payments
not reflected in such schedule, and properly assignable for
ultimate return by the contractor, no later than January 31,
2018. An estimate of the remaining amount of construction
costs as of January 31, 2018, as adjusted, shall be provided
by the Secretary of the Interior to each contractor no later
than 180 days after enactment; and
(B) require that, notwithstanding subsection (c)(2),
construction costs or other capitalized costs incurred after
the effective date of the contract or not reflected in the
schedule referenced in subparagraph (A), and properly
assignable to such contractor, shall be repaid in not more
than 5 years after notification of the allocation if such
amount is a result of a collective annual allocation of
capital costs to the contractors exercising contract
conversions under this subsection of less than $5,000,000. If
such amount is $5,000,000 or greater, such cost shall be
repaid as provided by applicable reclamation law, provided
that the reference to the amount of $5,000,000 shall not be a
precedent in any other context.
(b) Final Adjustment.--The amounts paid pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be subject to adjustment following a
final cost allocation by the Secretary of the Interior upon
completion of the construction of the Central Valley Project.
In the event that the final cost allocation indicates that
the costs properly assignable to the contractor are greater
than what has been paid by the contractor, the contractor
shall be obligated to pay the remaining allocated costs. The
term of such additional repayment contract shall be no less
than 1 year and no more than 10 years, however, mutually
agreeable provisions regarding the rate of repayment of such
amount may be developed by the parties. In the event that the
final cost allocation indicates that the costs properly
assignable to the contractor are less than what the
contractor has paid, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to credit such overpayment as an
offset against any outstanding or future obligation of the
contractor.
(c) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under
subsection (a)(3)(B) or subsection (b), upon a contractor's
compliance with and discharge of the obligation of repayment
of the construction costs as provided in subsection
(a)(3)(A), the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations of
any provision of Federal reclamation law shall not apply to
lands in such district.
(2) Notwithstanding any repayment obligation under
paragraph (3)(B) or paragraph (4)(B) of
[[Page H1631]]
subsection (a), or subsection (b), upon a contractor's
compliance with and discharge of the obligation of repayment
of the construction costs as provided in paragraphs (3)(A)
and (4)(A) of subsection (a), such contractor shall continue
to pay applicable operation and maintenance costs and other
charges applicable to such repayment contracts pursuant to
the then-current rate-setting policy and applicable law.
(d) Certain Repayment Obligations Not Altered.--
Implementation of the provisions of this section shall not
alter the repayment obligation of any other long-term water
service or repayment contractor receiving water from the
Central Valley Project, or shift any costs that would
otherwise have been properly assignable to any contractors
absent this section, including operations and maintenance
costs, construction costs, or other capitalized costs
incurred after the date of enactment of this Act, to other
such contractors.
(e) Statutory Interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall
be construed to affect the right of any long-term contractor
to use a particular type of financing to make the payments
required in paragraph (3)(A) or paragraph (4)(A) of
subsection (a).
(f) Definition of Treasury Rate.--For purposes of this
section, ``Treasury Rate'' shall be defined as the 20-year
Constant Maturity Treasury rate published by the United
States Department of the Treasury as of October 1, 2014.
TITLE IV--BAY-DELTA WATERSHED WATER RIGHTS PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
SEC. 401. WATER RIGHTS AND AREA-OF-ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, Federal
reclamation law, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') is
directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to
strictly adhere to State water rights law governing water
rights priorities by honoring water rights senior to those
belonging to the Central Valley Project, regardless of the
source of priority;
(2) the Secretary is directed, in the operation of the
Central Valley Project, to strictly adhere to and honor water
rights and other priorities that are obtained or exist
pursuant to the provisions of California Water Code sections
10505, 10505:5, 11128, 11460, and 11463; and sections 12200
to 12220, inclusive; and
(3) any action that affects the diversion of water or
involves the release of water from any Central Valley Project
water storage facility taken by the Secretary or the
Secretary of the Department of Commerce to conserve, enhance,
recover, or otherwise protect any species listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall
be applied in a manner that is consistent with water right
priorities established by State law.
SEC. 402. SACRAMENTO RIVER SETTLEMENT CONTRACTS.
In the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in the Bay-Delta and on the
Sacramento River, the Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce
are directed to apply any limitations on the operation of the
Central Valley Project or to formulate any ``reasonable
prudent alternative'' associated with the operation of the
Central Valley Project in a manner that strictly adheres to
and applies the water rights priorities for ``Project Water''
and ``Base Supply'' provided for in the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts. Article 3(i) of the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts shall not be utilized by the United
States as means to provide shortages to the Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts that are different than those provided
for in Article 5(a) of those contracts.
SEC. 403. SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED WATER SERVICE
CONTRACTORS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and the absolute
priority of the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors to
Sacramento River supplies over Central Valley Project
diversions and deliveries to other contractors, the Secretary
is directed, in the operation of the Central Valley Project,
to allocate water provided for irrigation purposes to
existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed in
compliance with the following:
(1) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a
``Wet'' year.
(2) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in an
``Above Normal'' year.
(3) Not less than 100% of their contract quantities in a
``Below Normal'' year.
(4) Not less than 75% of their contract quantities in a
``Dry'' year.
(5) Not less than 50% of their contract quantities in a
``Critically Dry'' year.
(b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to (i) modify any
provision of a water service contract that addresses
municipal and industrial water shortage policies of the
Secretary, (ii) affect or limit the authority of the
Secretary to adopt or modify municipal and industrial water
shortage policies, (iii) affect or limit the authority of the
Secretary to implement municipal and industrial water
shortage policies, or (iv) affect allocations to Central
Valley Project municipal and industrial contractors pursuant
to such policies. Neither subsection (a) nor the Secretary's
implementation of subsection (a) shall constrain, govern or
affect, directly or indirectly, the operations of the Central
Valley Project's American River Division or any deliveries
from that Division, its units or its facilities.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``existing Central Valley Project agricultural
water service contractors within the Sacramento River
Watershed'' means water service contractors within the
Shasta, Trinity, and Sacramento River Divisions of the
Central Valley Project, that have a water service contract in
effect, on the date of the enactment of this section, that
provides water for irrigation.
(2) The year type terms used in subsection (a) have the
meaning given those year types in the Sacramento Valley Water
Year Type (40-30-30) Index.
SEC. 404. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.
The Secretary shall insure that there are no redirected
adverse water supply or fiscal impacts to those within the
Sacramento River or San Joaquin River watershed or to the
State Water Project arising from the Secretary's operation of
the Central Valley Project to meet legal obligations imposed
by or through any State or Federal agency, including, but not
limited to those legal obligations emanating from the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or
this Act, or actions or activities implemented to meet the
twin goals of improving water supply or addressing
environmental needs of the Bay Delta.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. PRECEDENT.
Congress finds and declares that--
(1) coordinated operations between the Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project, previously requested and
consented to by the State of California and the Federal
Government, require assertion of Federal supremacy to protect
existing water rights throughout the system; and
(2) these circumstances are unique to California.
Therefore, nothing in this Act shall serve as precedent in
any other State.
SEC. 502. NO EFFECT ON PROCLAMATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Nothing in this Act shall affect in any way the
Proclamation of State of Emergency and associated Executive
Order issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on January 17,
2014, or the authorities granted thereby, including without
limitation the authority of the California State Water
Resources Control Board to modify any standards or
operational constraints adopted to implement the ``Principles
for on the Bay-Delta Standards Between the State of
California and the Federal Government'', dated December 15,
1994, so as to make additional irrigation and municipal and
industrial water supplies available in the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project service areas during the
state of emergency.
SEC. 503. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT.
(a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.--Section 3(a)(62)(B)(i) of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(62)(B)(i))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``the normal maximum'' the first place that
it appears and all that follows through ``April, 1990.'' and
inserting the following: ``the boundary of FERC Project No.
2179 as it existed on February 15, 2013, consisting of a
point approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence
with the North Fork of the Merced River, consisting of
approximately 7.4 miles.''; and
(2) by striking ``the normal maximum operating pool water
surface level of Lake McClure'' the second place that it
appears and inserting ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 2179
as it existed on February 15, 2013, consisting of a point
approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with
the North Fork of the Merced River''.
(b) Exchequer Project.--Section 3 of Public Law 102-432 is
amended by striking ``Act'' and all that follows through the
period and inserting ``Act.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 113-340. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 113-340.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by
the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 24, after the first period, insert the
following: ``Charges for all delivered water shall include
interest, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, on
the basis of average market yields on outstanding marketable
obligations of the United States with the remaining periods
of maturity comparable to the applicable reimbursement period
of the project, adjusted to the nearest 1/8 of 1 percent on
the underpaid balance of the allocable project cost.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3964 is very,
very simple. It is an inconvenient
[[Page H1632]]
truth, however, that it creates a revenue stream to the Treasury by
eliminating an irrigation subsidy which requires irrigators to pay
project debt with interest--in other words, ending free taxpayer
subsidy since 1902, which has been in place since reclamation was
created. It requires that any new water contracts or renewed contracts
must reflect the price of water with interest and repay the debt of the
project to only the Treasury with interest. This will be of small
assistance to balancing our national debt.
When reclamation was established in 1902, it was meant to deliver
water to farms with approximately 160 acres. Subsequent congressional
action has changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment
contract for these projects. So, in 1982, acreage was increased to 960
acres. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt
interest free for irrigators while municipalities, like my
constituents--my water people--and power users pay the required
appropriate interest. I wish other State water users were as lucky as
these folks.
H.R. 3964 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting
environment and public good. That is not good. If we are removing the
role of the Federal Government, then we should also remove the Federal
subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts.
My constituents and anybody else's must fairly and equally repay
additional interest on any project, and they have. For over a decade,
southern California foresaw needed infrastructure, and many local
entities stepped up to the plate and provided some relief. We paid for
and constructed new storage facilities, like the Diamond Valley Lake
Reservoir, entirely paid for by local groups and without one Federal
cent, adding 1 million acres of new storage. This is on top of the
investments we have made in title XVI--recycled water, which has only a
25 percent Federal match--which created 680,000 acre-feet in California
alone.
Let's end this interest-free subsidy at our taxpayers' expense, at
all of America's taxpayers' expense. Eliminating this unfair subsidy
will help to cut our deficit, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on this amendment.
With regard to a statement that was just made on the Bay Delta, it
seems that Secretary Babbitt and the Secretary of Natural Resources
were the ones who actually passed the Bay Delta Accord, and 3 years
were spent by Mr. Garamendi in trying to implement this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a
bipartisan vote of 174-250 when the gentlelady introduced it in 2012,
and it deserves a similar fate on the floor today. Let's be clear about
what it does.
It singles out Central Valley Project participants who pay their
Federal loans off early to a punitive surtax that is imposed on no
other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. Their
surtaxes will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Now, the
Central Valley Project was already singled out for a punitive tax--
about $50 million annually--by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of
environmental slush funds.
I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects
but that they should pay only the costs of those projects and no more.
These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they
are dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the
fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that is who
we would be singling out for this special tax. That tax is then paid in
only one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers
through higher prices.
I have a modest suggestion. Perhaps we should start putting people
back to work rather than running them out of business.
I have often criticized the gentlelady and her colleagues for
policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water
prices through the roof, but this proposal does so quite directly and
dramatically. I think that is why so many of her colleagues on the
Democratic side abandoned her 2 years ago and why they would be well
advised to do so again.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we can go on debating the issue, but
everybody who takes a loan has to pay interest, and I don't see any
reason why since 1902 our irrigators have been singled out for not
having to pay that while the power marketing agencies and other water
agencies do have to ante up that interest. They do pass it on to the
consumer, but the consumer understands why.
We need to be transparent on the issue and be able to let people know
really what we are paying for. Yes, we have the lowest priced crops in
California, but we must be able to ensure that we let the rest of the
Nation know why we need to move forward. The Central Valley Project,
the CVP, was $1.78 billion. Only $236 million has been repaid, and
$1.45 billion has not been repaid.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that is in order so as to
begin trying to help balance our budget. We hope that we will get our
colleagues to understand that all of us have to hurt a little bit, and
I don't see why this does not have the merit that it should, so I urge
a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be obvious to everyone
that, once you have paid off a loan, you don't keep paying interest on
that loan. Why? Because you have already paid it off. That is what
every project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation does. When they are
given permission to prepay the loan--to pay off the loan just the way
you would pay off your home loan early--they no longer are charged
interest for it.
The gentlelady would single out the Central Valley--and the Central
Valley alone--for this punitive surtax. I have often wondered why the
policy seemed to be aimed at the Central Valley. I don't know what it
is that my friends in the opposition have against the thousands of
farmworkers whose livelihoods depend upon farming in that region, but
they have been waging war on that hapless and helpless group for far
too long. This is another example of singling them out for a special
punitive tax paid by no one else in all of the Bureau of Reclamation
experience.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Matsui
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, line 24, strike ``shall be'' and all that follows
through the first period on page 19, line 2, and insert the
following: ``shall not be suspended, but rather shall
continue to be the responsibility of south of Delta CVP
contractors.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3964 that would preserve senior
water right holders in northern California. This bill grossly
oversimplifies the issue of California water, and it tries to solve the
problem by causing more harm to California's water system than good.
As I mentioned during our debates about California water, we should
not
[[Page H1633]]
jeopardize the health of one part of the State for another. In northern
California, we have balanced our watershed between the urban areas,
agriculture, the environment. We have been good stewards and care
deeply about how our watershed is preserved and grows.
This legislation would take the problems of one part of the State and
export them to the other. We cannot have a lasting solution to our
water problems until we work on a comprehensive solution that includes
all of the stakeholders. Specifically, this bill attempts to dissolve
the responsibility for 800,000 acre-feet of water for the delta
environment. That doesn't solve California's water problems. It only
exacerbates them.
We all know that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta needs to be
restored, not driven into further decline. The delta is a hub of
California's water system. California needs it to be healthy. My
amendment to H.R. 3964 seeks to amend the language regarding the
elimination of water for the delta environment. The amendment also
preserves senior water rights in northern California.
The underlying legislation only creates discord at a time when we
need alliances. We can and must do better for California as a whole. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other,
focuses on the central issue surrounding this bill: What comes first--
families or fish?
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out
800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. That
water came out of the allocations for the Central Valley that all sides
had agreed to. At the time, it was promised that the water would be
replaced. That promise is unfulfilled to this day.
Worse, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a
floor rather than as a ceiling. In the mid-1990s, a zealous official in
the Department of the Interior preempted State water rights and ordered
that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central
Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights
permits issued by the State of California.
This bill reestablished the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by
all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised: ``A deal is a
deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will
come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' This provision redeems
the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and the provision
that the gentlelady is offering would have us delete that provision.
I might add that, also under this bill, the 800,000 acre-feet can be
recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose
rather than being lost to the ocean. To those who tell us they like
recycling, this is the ultimate recycling bill. I might also point out
that an amendment that had a very similar effect 2 years ago was
rejected on a bipartisan vote of 178-247 in this House. I would
recommend that we do so again today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, my friend on the other side is trying to
distract the public on what their bill actually does.
H.R. 3964 would not provide any relief from the real drought, but it
would instead permanently reallocate water for one interest.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act
designated 800,000 acre-feet of water for environmental purposes. This
water is important. It is used to balance our water needs between
urban, agricultural, and environment.
This so-called ``b2'' water was dedicated to help stem the rapid
decline of the delta ecosystem. H.R. 3964 repeals the ``b2'' water
allocation in the CVPIA unless 800,000 acre-feet of additional capacity
is found by 2018. Who is going to make up the 800,000 acre-feet by
2018?
As written, the bill would relieve the south delta CVP users of any
responsibility for the environmental water. Instead, it would attempt
to shift the responsibilities to northern California, putting into
jeopardy senior water rights holders in northern California.
Mr. Chairman, my district, the city of Sacramento, and Sacramento
County wrote letters stating what we all know. This is a backdoor
attempt to undermine longstanding California water rights and let one
interest jump to the head of the line.
In short, this bill is another blatant water grab from northern
California.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect senior water rights holders
in northern California and assure we are all in this together in
California. We should not pit one against another.
Again, this bill will not help alleviate the drought. Even if we
pumped as much water south as possible, Central Valley farmers still
wouldn't have enough. That is because a lack of pumping is not the
problem. The problem is a lack of rain and snow. There is no more water
to pump.
Northern California is in severe drought. This bill does not solve
California's drought. It only further divides our State.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
and in strong support of H.R. 3964.
Final passage of this bill, as we come to the floor, is a defining
vote. It is a vote by which the public will be able to determine just
whose side we are on. Do we favor animals--even fish--above the well-
being of people?
A clique of environmental extremists with lots of money and no common
sense have fostered insane policies that are destroying one of the most
vibrant and productive industries in California. These antihuman, pro-
animal policies have resulted in the unemployment of tens of thousands
of hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Their
lives and livelihood have been destroyed, all for the purpose of
protecting a minnow that isn't even good enough to be baked.
Yes, by this vote, the public will be able to determine whether or
not, at a time of drought and crushingly high unemployment, we will
continue to dump hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of fresh water into
the San Francisco Bay every year--enough water to grow 10 million tons
of tomatoes, 200 million boxes of lettuce, or 20 million tons of
grapes.
This is government regulation gone berserk. Instead of protecting us
from environmental threats, people are being treated as expendable. The
current policy is destructive not only to our farmers, who are probably
affected the most, but it is increasing the cost of putting food on our
families' tables.
All of this is being done for what? To protect the well-being of a
fish.
Now we have an opportunity to reestablish our priorities. A vote
against this bill is a vote for radical environmentalists' antihuman
policies. A vote for this bill is a vote to reaffirm that we place a
higher value on human beings and want to improve their condition.
Join me in opposing this amendment and supporting the bill.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I will just say this. I grew up in the
Central Valley. My father was a farmer. So I understand clearly the
challenges the farming community has.
I am not an individual who dismisses the farming community. I lived
on a farm. My father was a small farmer. My grandfather was a farmer.
My uncle was a farmer. So I understand these challenges.
I also understand we are together in California, and we must work
together, and we should be using this time to find real solutions to
California's water issues, including the drought. Unfortunately, we
seem to be playing partisan games.
My amendment would simply protect water rights in northern
California. I
[[Page H1634]]
urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague from the Central Valley (Mr. Valadao), the author of this
measure.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for here is a little
understanding of the situation we have got.
This graph here shows how much water was in storage at the end of
2013. There was quite a bit of water, but the allocation was this much.
What this amendment does is continue to waste all the water here that
should have been used for families at their homes, because people need
clean water to drink. They also need water to grow food. Farmers don't
farm for fun, they farm for food, because people like to eat. It is a
funny little concept we have got going on here. We cannot continue to
waste water.
I have enjoyed seeing the pictures of all the dams and everybody
referring to the drought as the only issue that we have got. We have
got a waste of water. We have got to stop wasting that water. That is
what our goal is, and that is why I oppose this amendment.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 504. PROTECTIONS FOR DELTA COUNTIES.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not have
a harmful effect on the quality, quantity, or safety of
drinking water supplies for residents of the five Delta
Counties (Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, San Joaquin
County, Solano County, and Yolo County, California).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bera) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple.
Supporters of this bill argue that it won't negatively impact upstream
users. My constituents are these upstream users.
My amendment protects upstream users, adding safeguards for the five
California delta counties. It guarantees that this politically
motivated water grab would not harm the quality, quantity, or safety of
drinking water supplies for these residents.
California is in the middle of a crisis. We need real solutions, not
political solutions. Last year was our driest year on record. The
snowpack where the State gets over a third of its water is at record
lows.
We all agree there is a problem. So let's sit down, Democrats and
Republicans, and work to find solutions together, not pit one community
against another. In the meantime, let's not sacrifice one community.
This amendment ensures that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, like Tennyson's rotting mackerel in the
moonlight, this amendment shines and stinks.
It states the obvious: the bill will not harm delta drinking water
supplies. Well, of course it won't. After all, the delta counties are
senior to the Central Valley in their water rights and so they have
first call on that water. Under this bill, no agency of the State or
Federal Government can take that right away.
Furthermore, under this bill, the delta counties can also reuse
environmental water that otherwise would have been lost to the ocean,
making this the ultimate water recycling bill.
This bill in no way affects the quality of drinking water in the
delta or anywhere else. The proof of that is the fact that in the years
following adoption of the Bay Delta Accord, which H.R. 3964 merely
restores, never was it suggested by any water agency that drinking
water or agricultural water was adversely affected in any way, shape,
or form.
By placing this provision in the bill, it immediately opens it up to
litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. The mere
allegation by a single litigant, no matter how outlandish, no matter
how contorted, could stall these vitally needed reforms. It would also
give this administration the ability to claim a right to nullify this
law based on such a fiction.
A few years ago, when Central Valley water was being diverted for the
delta smelt, I confronted the Secretary of the Interior in the Natural
Resources Committee. I pointed out that with thousands of farmworkers
unemployed, with a quarter-million acres of prime farmland destroyed,
with food lines in the agricultural capital of the West, with
unemployment in some of these communities reaching 45 percent, he had
the authority to suspend the diversions and restore that water to the
Valley to stop this human tragedy. He acknowledged that he had that
authority, but he wouldn't use it, he said, because doing so ``would be
like admitting failure.''
The amendment before us would give the same administration the excuse
to ignore reality and act on ideological whim.
When this amendment was offered 2 years ago, it was rejected on a
bipartisan vote of 177-243 in this House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
colleague from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
California is facing a severe statewide drought. It is having
devastating impacts on families all across our State. This bill will
only make things worse for many. It will jeopardize the drinking water
for millions of Californians.
In my district, families from Contra Costa and Solano Counties get
their drinking water from the delta. This supply is already limited due
to the extreme drought. This bill wants to pump that limited drinking
water south. Doing this would flood the delta with seawater--and people
can't drink seawater.
That is why this amendment is so important. It simply says that this
bill shall not harm the delta's very limited drinking water supply.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I thank the gentleman
from Sacramento for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, in closing, from my
perspective, this is stating the obvious. Let's protect the water
rights of the users in my community in northern California. This just
codifies that. It just makes sure that when folks in the five delta
counties turn on their taps, they can get clean water, quality water.
So if it is in the bill, there is no reason not to vote ``yes'' on
this and codify it and make sure we are protecting those families in
northern California.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who introduced
the predecessor to this bill 2 years ago.
Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the last amendment are about one
thing. Let's not be fooled here. It is about sewer discharge from the
communities in the delta that continue to dump their sewer water,
runoff water, into the delta. They don't want to have to take
responsibility for their actions.
So I hate to have to keep going back to this, but I am going to have
to go back to it again.
You see a discharge there. Here are the communities all dumping
sewage
[[Page H1635]]
into the delta. That is all both of these amendments are about. That is
why you should vote against them.
What is interesting about this is you have heard a lot of talk about
the fish. This is what the true believers really want to protect. They
want to protect this fish right here called the delta smelt. This is
what this is about. It is about the Endangered Species Act. It is about
the biggest water grab in history and running people out of water to
protect this little fish.
But they just don't want to protect that fish, oh, no. That is not
good enough, Mr. Chairman. They want to dump their sewer water, protect
the smelt, and protect the striped bass.
The striped bass is not native to the delta, but they want to protect
it. Do you know why they want to protect it? Because they say that
fishermen want to fish. But, conveniently, it is not native to the
delta. But guess what the striped bass eats? If you can see on this, it
eats the smelt.
{time} 1630
It eats the smelt, Mr. Chairman. Inconvenient little truth there. So
they want to protect these and these. This one eats those. This is a
problem that can't be fixed by people who want to protect little fish,
Mr. Chairman.
So, as we started out today, this is a bill that passed the last
Congress. Had the Senate acted on it, we would not be in the situation
that we are today. We are out of water because we are not using the
infrastructure that our State has built and added on to over the last
century. We decided to throw all that infrastructure away, not use it,
dump the water out to the ocean. Now we have no more water left.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 504. STUDY ON WATER RESOURCES.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study and submit a report to the Congress on the
resiliency and adaptability of all Bureau of Reclamation
projects and facilities in California to any ongoing or
forecasted changes to the quality, quantity, or reliability
of water resources. The study shall include recommendations
on how to strengthen the resiliency and adaptability of the
Bureau's projects and facilities in California.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment. As we
know, California is in the middle of a severe drought, an emergency
with no significant relief in sight. We must do all we can to
responsibly manage this situation, working with State and local
officials to ensure that our farmers, our businesses, and our
constituents have the resources they need now and in the future.
While we work to address the current drought situation, the
emergency, we know that severe droughts like this one will only become
more frequent in the future due to climate change; and we must do all
we can as we deal with this emergency to also prepare for the next one.
My amendment simply requires a study of the resiliency and
adaptability of Bureau of Reclamation facilities and projects in
California to predict changes to the quality, quantity, or reliability
of water resources. Simply put, it will look at how well the Bureau is
prepared for the expected impacts of climate change.
Like it or not, climate change is real, and it is already happening.
We have seen the evidence all around us in more extreme storms, in
wildfires, in sea level rising and severe drought.
Water is gold in California. Scientists have long warned that climate
change will make droughts, shortages of water, particularly in the
Western United States, longer, stronger, and more frequent. So rather
than bury our heads in the sand denying the science, we should be doing
all we can to make our infrastructure more resilient and adaptable.
At every point in our water infrastructure, from reservoirs to
kitchen faucets, we need to find sustainable ways to lessen the impact
of severe droughts like this one. That means more conservation, more
efficiency, and more recycling, to be sure, but it also means
increasing the resiliency and adaptability of existing infrastructure
to maximize the limited resources we have.
That is what my amendment is all about--preparing for the future.
Simply lurching from crisis to crisis, from drought to drought, is no
way to govern, and that is exactly what we have been doing. According
to a FEMA study, every dollar spent on predisaster mitigation reduces
the cost of future damages by $4.
The drought emergency may not be destroying structures and
infrastructures, like some of our extreme storms do, but it is
definitely causing serious damage to our crops, to our critical
habitats, to our livelihoods. Yet the underlying bill does nothing to
address these serious problems, and it does nothing to alleviate the
drought emergency in California, and it does nothing to prevent any in
the future. Instead, it uses the drought emergency as an excuse to
repeal Federal environmental laws to preempt California law, and it
would set a dangerous precedent that would have lasting implications on
how water is managed throughout the West. That is why the bill is
opposed by the State of California and numerous local government
agencies, fishing and hunting organizations, editorial boards, and
national environmental groups. Rarely has such a diverse coalition come
together to oppose a piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, instead of wasting time on a divisive bill that is
going nowhere, we should be working together to find comprehensive
solutions that get our communities the resources they need.
I want to be clear, my amendment does not fix the serious problems
with this underlying bill, and I will oppose the bill even if my
amendment is adopted. But my amendment will at least move us one step
closer to properly preparing for future drought emergencies, so I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to impose yet
another environmental study that could lead to more water being
diverted away from families and farmers and flushed out into the ocean.
If you support throwing more stored water out to the ocean and making
this crisis worse, then this amendment is another step toward that end.
Now, those who speak of ``resiliency'' and ``adaptability'' are using
these terms to propose that dams evacuate more water storage earlier in
the water year to account for faster snowmelt from the mountains and
rain-based inflows. Now, just today, the East Bay Express reported that
water managers deliberately dumped 800,000 acre-feet--as I said
earlier, enough for 4 million Californians--into the Pacific Ocean that
they knew was desperately needed as the drought continued to worsen.
Folsom Lake, the principal source of water storage for Sacramento and
its suburbs, is nearly empty now because of those releases. We watched
the Sacramento River at full flood all autumn and wondered what in the
world were they thinking.
The fact is a hydrology consensus does not exist on this, and we
should not be asking the GAO to investigate terms that are based on a
lack of scientific consensus.
[[Page H1636]]
This amendment does nothing to restore water that continues to be
lost to punitive Federal regulations and may, in fact, contribute to
new regulatory overreach.
Californians are in a drought crisis now. It is time for action, not
another bureaucratic study with no end in sight. This is why we must
not impose studies in this bill or create steps to further erode water
storage. We need to build more storage and capture more water, and that
is precisely what this bill does. This bill is aimed at implementing a
permanent solution to California's water crises so we can put people
back to work permanently and restore balance back to California's water
supply.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my colleague.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we continually hear about the 800,000
acre-feet. Indeed, there is 800,000 acre-feet. It is not out to the
ocean; It is into the delta. That water is available for a variety of
purposes, including Contra Costa, the entire East Bay, and Solano
County that I represent. It is there as environmental water, but it has
multiple purposes, so it is not wasted water at all.
The other thing is this allocation chart that keeps coming up. That
is an allocation based upon a prediction of the amount of water that
rain will fall that year. It is not the actual amount of water
delivered. If you take a look at the actual amount of water delivered,
it is substantially greater.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the
gentlewoman is.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. It
simply requires a study of adaptability and resiliency of the Bureau of
Reclamation's water infrastructure in California.
Scientists are warning us that severe droughts like this one will
only grow more severe and frequent in the future. We have a
responsibility to our farmers, our businesses, and all of our
constituents to do everything possible to prepare for these impacts. My
amendment is a step in this direction, so I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for making the point. I want people to look at the pictures of the
empty reservoir at Folsom, the near-empty reservoir at Oroville and
remember 800,000 acre-feet that could have been retained behind those
dams was released by water officials for the environmental regulations
that the gentleman defends. I think people need to reflect on that
water that should right now be sitting behind those dams but for these
regulations and realize what is exacerbating this terrible drought.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and neighbor.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about, this particular
amendment is going to start another study. We heard earlier about more
task forces. This is why we have had 40 years' worth of delay--or
longer--on building new projects in California.
We hear about what the projected flows are going to be. Here is what
the actual flows are, coming back to this chart once again. You see
over here, on the left, 76 percent of the water that flows into the
delta goes straight out to the ocean--three-quarters. A mere 6 percent
stays in the delta for its use. Eighteen percent is split between
Central Valley and southern California needs. So we are wasting a lot
of water, a lot of opportunity that could be taken advantage of and
still capturing water for environmental need as well as ag need and
urban need.
This chart shows, this illustration, that we talk about water that
needs to be delivered south of the delta, indeed, even to the central
coast, which is running very quickly out of water as well. The central
coast benefits from the pumps.
The pumps, when you talk about fish take, are approximately 2
percent. Maybe we can do better, but they are doing a pretty good job.
As was talked about earlier, predator fish in the delta are taking
anywhere from 65 to 90 percent of the fish kill of the salmon and other
protected fish that we are basing all of this fuss on.
So we need to get very real about what the problem is and that the
solutions aren't coming today from these amendments. But, indeed, Mr.
Valadao's bill is a step in that direction, as well as establishing
long-term, the type of storage, the type of reoperation that is in
favor of the people that are productive in California being the
breadbasket of the Nation and of the world.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. 504. FISHERIES DISASTER DECLARATION.
The Proclamation of State Emergency and associated
Executive Order issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. on
January 17, 2014, shall be considered a request by the
Governor for purposes of section 312(a) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1861a) to determine that a fishery resource disaster exists
for fisheries that originate in the State of California.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3964.
Mr. Chair, the bill before us today, H.R. 3964, is a radical bill
that is strongly opposed by the State of California as well as other
Western states, fishing groups, and many other stakeholders.
H.R. 3964 would seriously undermine our ability to solve California's
water problems, and it poses a serious threat to water management all
across the Western United States.
And, to be clear, this is not a man-made drought. There is not enough
water to meet all demands. In 2009, with the Endangered Species Act and
other environmental laws in place, more water was exported than in
other drought years.
This bill would effectively repeal the last hundred years of
policymaking--unraveling legal settlements, defying settled Supreme
Court precedent, and up-ending state and local efforts to find
solutions.
H.R. 3964 would block or repeal numerous state and federal laws
protecting California's Bay-Delta estuary and San Joaquin River,
including:
The 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act;
The 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act;
The 2009 bipartisan compromise passed by the California State
Legislature;
The state and federal endangered species acts; and
Several other provisions of state law and water rights.
What's worse, this bill explicitly overrides more than 100 years of
federal law by exempting the federal Central Valley Project from
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which requires deference to
State authority over water resources.
Republicans have to understand that reverting back to the 1994 Bay-
Delta Accord would severely damage the ecosystem. We can't negate 20
years of science and expect our ecosystem to survive.
[[Page H1637]]
This bill is opposed by a range of stakeholders from across
California and around the country, including Trout Unlimited, the
United Farm Workers, and every major national conservation and wildlife
group.
Eighty California environmental, environmental justice, recreational
and commercial fishing groups, and Indian tribes signed a letter of
opposition that was sent to all House members.
Many water agencies, local governments, and business groups across
California also oppose the bill.
And serious economic analysis shows that this bill would devastate
our economy.
The Delta Protection Commission says that, ``Delta agriculture
supports nearly 23,000 jobs statewide, over $1.9 billion in value added
to the state, and over $4.6 billion in economic output in the state of
California.''
Three different studies from UC Davis, University of the Pacific, and
UC Berkeley estimated that the drought cost approximately 4,000 to
5,000 jobs in 2008/09.
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Administration estimated that
the two-year closure of the salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 resulted in
the loss of $534 million and almost 5,000 jobs.
The Delta Protection Commission stated that Delta recreation and
tourism generates approximately over 4,900 jobs and $600 million in
economic output in the state of California.
As California State Governor Brown wrote to California offices:
``H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California's
efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would override state laws and
protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of
others;
It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply
not possible given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would
interfere with our ability to respond effectively and flexibly to the
current emergency, and would re-open old water wounds undermining years
of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our
water needs.''
This bill is a radical attempt to put one special interest ahead of
everyone else in California, and it would end all productive efforts to
solve problems in California.
I strongly oppose H.R. 3964 and urge my colleagues to oppose this
dangerous bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, on January 17, 2014,
the Governor of California issued a proclamation, a state of emergency
regarding the drought. My amendment simply states that the Secretary of
Commerce should treat this emergency proclamation as requested by the
Governor under Section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to determine
whether there is a commercial fishery failure for any fisheries that
originate in the State of California.
Many charter and commercial boat fisheries on the west coast are
dependent upon chinook and coho salmon stock that originate in
Colorado's rivers and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean, where they are
harvested.
Just one of these runs, the fall-run chinook from the Central Valley,
turns north, and it makes up as much as 50 percent of the salmon
production off Oregon and to areas to the north, and it is responsible
for as much as 90 percent of California's salmon catch.
{time} 1645
This run and others are in peril due to the drought. The reductions
in river flows will impact incubating eggs, juvenile fish that are
rearing in the upper regions of the river, and fry that are trying to
out-migrate to the ocean.
While many fishing groups are working with Federal and State agencies
to plan for the drought conditions and mitigate as much as possible
against the potential impacts by facilitating out-migration, we cannot
know how successful those efforts will be. While it is likely the
drought will not have a large impact on commercial activities this
year, many of these fisheries could see devastating impacts over the
next several years, particularly in 2015 and 2016.
This amendment does not mandate a fisheries disaster declaration, but
it will enable the Secretary to issue one should it be necessary. Such
a declaration will enable the fishermen to qualify for disaster
assistance. Many of us--whether we are from fisheries in the Pacific
Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, or the gulf--have dealt with fisheries disasters
in the past.
During the last drought in California, I had to literally stalk
Secretary Gutierrez of the Bush administration to get a declaration.
Joe Barton graciously had him come in to testify and put him in a side
room and said, Wait a minute. There are a few Members of Congress who
want to talk to you, and it was myself and a number of other Members
from California, Oregon, who got him to sign a disaster declaration,
and we were successful. Well, this time, let's put it on the desk now
and give the Secretary that capability to easily declare a disaster.
While it is clear this drought will have wide-ranging economic
impacts, this amendment will put Commerce Secretary Pritzker on notice
that we have the potential to face a major economic hardship in the
fishing industry as well.
This amendment will ensure that our fisheries and our fishing
industries that depend upon salmon stocks from California rivers will
be given due consideration as these impacts unfold.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member stated, this amendment states
that the California Governor's declared drought emergency is considered
a request to the Federal Government to declare a fisheries disaster.
Under longstanding law, the Governor can make such a request by sending
a letter to the Commerce Secretary.
The amendment does not change underlying law that requires the
Commerce Secretary to determine whether a fisheries disaster
declaration is merited. This amendment simply serves as a request, but
the Commerce Secretary still has discretion to make a decision on this
request. As such, we do not have any objections to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I
appreciate his sensitivity to the potential disaster for our fisheries.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 504. STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER REFORM LAWS.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall interfere with the State of California's Delta and
water management reform and funding bills of 2009, including
SB7x-1, SB7x-2, SB7x-6, and SB7x-7.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about 3-inch fish in this debate.
In fact, to hear my colleagues in the Republican Party tell it, this is
a story of a 3-inch fish that is taking water away in this critical
drought that should be allocated to people.
Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, you would have to have the brain of
a 3-inch fish to believe that narrative. There is no such thing
happening in this critical drought year. What is happening, however, is
some people are cynically trying to capitalize on the worst drought in
California history in order to steal water from some parts of the State
and from other water users and give it to a few. In fact, if this bill
were accurately named, it would be called the ``Massive Federal
Preemption Overreach and Water Theft Act for the Elections of 2014,''
but it is, in fact, pretending to be something quite different.
We need to ask ourselves why the State of California is so
passionately opposing this bill. Attorney General
[[Page H1638]]
Kamala Harris wrote a letter just yesterday following the same position
that prior attorneys general have always taken on this issue, including
Republican attorneys general, that the Federal Government should abide
by the 100-year precedent of deference, of cooperative Federalism,
letting California administer its own water rights and allocate that
water instead of the sweeping preemption that we see in this bill.
This bill would upset the most basic tenets of California water law.
The fact that the California constitution provides the State the
ability to allocate water, the ability to administer things like the
public trust doctrine, all of that is repealed and swept away by the
preemption provisions in this bill. It doesn't have to be that way.
In a crisis like this, it actually is possible for Republicans and
Democrats and people from all parts of the State to come together and
solve problems. I know that because I was part of something just like
that that happened in our last multiyear critical drought. I chaired
the Water Committee in the State Assembly in 2009 when there was a
historic water package passed, a package that was supported by
Republicans and Democrats, signed by a Republican Governor, supported
by people from inland Central Valley California, southern California,
urban areas. National media like The New York Times called it the most
significant water reform in California in 60 years.
Well, unfortunately, all of that, too, is repealed, just swept away
by the overreaching preemption in this bill.
The amendment I am offering, Mr. Chairman, would say, at least let's
save what the national media and just about everybody else in the water
world had called the most important thing, the best thing to happen in
California water in the last 60 years. Let's save that from preemption
as this bill goes forward if the amendment is made in order, and I
would request that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my objection to this amendment is
similar to others of its ilk. It would allow litigation to block
implementation of this bill indefinitely. There is, of course, nothing
in this bill that would interfere with the State's water bond or its
groundwater monitoring or groundwater conservation. Indeed, it will
improve groundwater conservation since it brings balance back to
surface water deliveries and restores the incentives for groundwater
recharging.
The poison pill is not only the prospect of indefinite delay based
upon the allegation of a single individual that can find the ear of a
sympathetic judge. It is introducing the subjective standard of coequal
goals for the delta.
The term ``coequal goals'' is something that is subjective. A term
like this is subject to litigation not only at the State level but will
be used as a means, if this amendment is adopted, to litigate this bill
and delay the balance that it restores.
That balance was established by the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that
was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement to serve the coequal
goals of human prosperity and environmental protection. When that
agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all
parties that ``a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need
for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal
Government.'' The water diversions for the delta smelt, based upon the
same opportunity to litigate that this amendment renews, shattered that
promise. This bill redeems it. The amendment should be rejected.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the public trust doctrine and the coequal
goals articulated in that 2009 California legislation are the
centerpieces of California water. Without those coequal goals codified
in that State law, the entire Bay Delta conservation plan is over. It
is done. It has zero chance of success.
Without the public trust doctrine and other State laws in critical
years where a fully allocated and appropriated system like we have in
California, where tough balancing decisions have to be made by the
State water board, without those basic tools for how to do that job,
they can't do their job. They can't allocate a diminishing resource,
and the entire system of water and water rights allocation is thrown
into chaos.
So to hear my friend talk about his concern for litigation, I have to
say, this is the recipe for endless litigation, confusion, and
uncertainty in California. This is essentially throwing a grenade into
California water that would ignite a water war unlike anything we have
ever seen.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the
gentleman from California is.
Mr. HUFFMAN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply request a
``yes'' vote. It doesn't have to be partisanship. It doesn't have to be
taking water from one part of the State or from one set of users and
giving it to the other, scapegoating the 3-inch fish.
There is actually a way to solve water problems, even in California
where water is scarce. We did it in 2009. It was widely recognized as
historic, important, and positive. Let's save those 2009 water reforms
from being roadkill from this reckless piece of legislation and vote
``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what Mr. McClintock
said. This is designed to kill the bill. This is a sneaky little lawyer
amendment designed for litigation. This amendment, Valadao amendment,
stops all litigation and gives back the people of California their
water, and it quits wasting water. That is what this does.
I can understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't
like to talk about the little 3-inch fish, which, I guess it has a
little brain now. Well, it is a bait fish; of course it has a little
brain.
The folks you have to ask yourselves about are the ones who come down
here and talk about State preemptions when they know the Endangered
Species Act is a preemption. They know what passed in 1992 was a State
preemption. They know what passed in 2009 was a State preemption.
Sneaky little lawyers all over the place.
Money, Mr. Chairman, money. It is about money. It is about NRDC. NRDC
has made millions of dollars that we still cannot get an accounting
for. Mr. Chairman, I want to know, how much money has NRDC made off of
bringing water lawsuits in the State of California? Millions. Millions
and millions and millions. That is what this amendment is designed to
do, is to create jobs for lawyers. That is what this is about.
So I would advise and ask my colleagues to kill this amendment by
voting ``no.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATE CONDITIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall take effect until the Secretary
of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, determines that carrying out this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall not have a harmful effect
on water quality or water availability for agricultural
producers in the five Delta Counties (Contra Costa County,
Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, and
Yolo County, California).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H1639]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R.
3964, which I urge all of my colleagues to support.
As my colleagues know, I am honored to represent the people of San
Joaquin Delta. The delta is a precious resource that provides
tremendous economic benefits to our entire State. Preserving the delta
should be a priority for all of California.
Agriculture is the economic backbone of the delta region, generating
about $3 billion of economic activity a year in my district. Three
billion dollars is a lot of money for us, and our producers rely on
high quality water for their products.
As currently written, H.R. 3964 will ship more water out of the
delta, even though current shipments have already threatened the water
quality for our delta farmers.
During debate on this legislation in the previous Congress, we were
told that the bill was a great deal for the delta, and yet delta
counties opposed the legislation then, and we still strongly oppose the
legislation now. That is because this bill, as Governor Brown says,
will mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others.
All of California is experiencing a drought that threatens nearly
82,000 farmers and ranchers in the State. We should not be pitting
farmers against each other. Simply put, this bill will steal water from
northern California and devastate water quality for delta farmers.
{time} 1700
Farmers need freshwater, not saltwater, for their harvest. What my
colleagues are saying is this: We have got the votes, we have got the
money, let's go take the water; in other words, the doctrine of might
makes right.
Mr. Chairman, we should follow established law and protect the rights
of the delta farmers. That is why I am offering a simple amendment to
make sure that the most harmful provisions of this bill do not take
effect until the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture verify that water quality for agriculture in the delta
region is not negatively affected.
Proponents of H.R. 3964 claim that the bill is pro-farmer, but this
bill steals water from one part of California and gives it to another.
If the authors of H.R. 3964 support farmers throughout the entire
State, they should support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has it exactly backwards.
This prevents water from being stolen from northern California in
violation of State water rights. It strengthens the water rights that
exist in current law. It means that water cannot be stolen from
northern California even by the State itself.
This amendment offered by my friend is a variation of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) earlier. It gives
the Secretary of the Interior the ability to suspend most provisions of
this law until she certifies it will have no adverse effect on delta
agricultural water. Well, the same points apply. Despite the fact that
this bill strengthens water rights in which the delta is senior to the
Central Valley, this bill would give the Secretary, on whim, the power
to ignore this law even in wet years, an authority her predecessor has
already emphatically proven can and will be abused.
I will challenge the gentleman to cite one example of a complaint
that agricultural water in the delta was adversely affected during all
the years the Bay Delta Accord was in effect. This bill merely restores
the Bay Delta Accord while strengthening northern California water
rights. If he cannot cite even one example, he must admit that this
amendment is a hoax designed to nullify the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, our farmers are already experiencing
saltwater intrusion. Saltwater levels are increasing. Shipping more
water south of the delta is going to increase our saltwater
concentration. This is a known, ongoing problem.
I ask my colleague, Mr. Chairman, that if he is confident that the
bill will benefit California farmers, including delta farmers, then he
should support my amendment, because that is exactly what we are asking
it to do--to allow the Secretary of Agriculture and allow the Secretary
of the Interior to make an assessment before water is shipped, lowering
our quality.
So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close if the gentleman
is.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, basically, I am asking my colleagues to
give us a chance to make sure that our farmers are not damaged, our
farmers are not hurt and that our $3 billion of economic activity is
not curtailed in favor of a bill of doubtful quality. I think it is
going to make a difference if we can just work together, find a
solution that all the stakeholders can abide by and not resort to what
appears to be a water steal.
I think my farmers are going to ask me to defend their water quality,
and that is exactly what I am doing. If my colleagues are supporting
defending the farmers and the rights of the farmers throughout the
State, then they should support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I remind the House that this same
amendment was brought up 2 years ago and rejected, once again, on a
bipartisan vote of 177-243.
I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Valadao), the author of this important legislation.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, as someone who farms myself, I understand
the value of water, and when the State Water Resources Control Board
issues a cease and desist order in the gentleman's district for
illegally diverting water--that was something when I spent some time up
in Sacramento, I actually got on a boat and went around the delta and
noticed so many pumps out there with no meters pumping water and
pumping above their right, taking more water than they were supposed to
to the level of 77.7 cubic feet per second illegally. So when we talk
about stealing water, there is a lot going on there that needs to be
talked about.
More importantly, yes, water is an important resource, and we should
respect that and appreciate the quality, but to insert more bureaucracy
in the middle to prevent us from taking what is rightfully ours and
then have the audacity to dump sewage in this water and then claim you
are trying to protect it and keep it clean, we are talking sewage from
these communities, 380 million gallons per day being dumped in the
delta, and then they come and tell us they are trying to protect and
keep this water clean.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Peters of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 113-340.
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 504. COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLIES AND WATER BUDGETS NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not
adversely affect any community's water supply or water budget
for future years, taking into account predicted dry years.
For the purpose of this section, the term ``water budget''
means an accounting of the rates of water movement and the
[[Page H1640]]
change in water storage in all or parts of the atmosphere,
land surface, and subsurface of an area.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, California is experiencing
its worst drought in decades, threatening local drinking water
supplies, power generation and California's economy, and relief does
not seem to be near at hand.
More than three-quarters of the State is in extreme or exceptional
drought, and it affects every resident in my home State. It would be
wrong to take action today that would help one part of the State but
harm another.
In its current form, the bill is not clear on how reallocating
thousands of acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River restoration
to the State's agricultural sector will affect future water supply. We
must think about the long-term impacts of today's water decisions, and
my amendment ensures that this bill will not adversely affect any
community's water supply or water budget, especially during predicted
dry years.
It is imperative that we figure out how to ensure sustainable water
supplies so that next year or in 5 years or in 20 years, Californians
on the farms, in the suburbs or in our cities will still have enough
water to drink to pursue their livelihoods.
Water is our most precious resource, and we must manage it carefully.
The underlying bill does not create more water and will not make it
rain. We must make sure that decisions made here in Washington won't
hurt everyday Californians.
Water decisions in California affect every part of the State,
including my district in southern California. Recently, the State Water
Project announced a zero allocation for this year. This unprecedented
move means that southern California communities, including San Diego,
will get no water from the Bay Delta in the northern part of the State.
Reallocating and rerouting water will not solve that problem. The
real solution is to become resilient in the face of future droughts
through improved conservation, expanded storage and increased diversity
in our water supplies.
San Diego was devastated by drought in the 1970s, and since then,
southern California has made necessary investments to better prepare
for, respond to and withstand drought. Over several decades, San Diego
has reduced its long-term water demand and has invested in increased
efficiency.
Per capita water use has decreased about 27 percent since 2007, and
local cities and water districts are on pace to meet their State-
mandated water-efficiency targets for 2020. Total regional consumption
of potable water in 2013 was 24 percent lower than in 2007.
By raising the San Vicente Dam, the largest dam raise in the Western
Hemisphere, and constructing the Olivenhain Dam, San Diego has
dramatically increased its storage capability, which will supply
adequate storage during dry years. The San Diego County Water Authority
and the city of San Diego are national leaders in recycling wastewater
and in desalination, turning ocean water into usable potable water.
So San Diego has done, and is continuing to do, its part because we
have done a good job of conserving, preparing and investing as needed
to minimize the coming hardships. A real drought solution should not
put any community at risk of losing future water supplies to another
region without addressing better measures to conserve and store water.
This certainly is not the last drought California will face. We will
continue to have water supply challenges, and we need to be continuing
to prepare for the future. All users must become more resilient, and
any action now should have the foresight to maintain water supplies for
dry years that are sure to come.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect communities
across California and to promote a long-term vision for protecting our
scarce water resources. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California has been plagued by
litigation and regulation, delay and obfuscation on its water policy,
and we are now living with the result of that.
The gentleman offers us an amendment that is more of the same--in
fact, in this case, delaying the bill until the Federal Government
measures the water content of clouds. Enough is enough. It is a time
now for action, and this bill calls for action.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another stall tactic.
There have been several speakers who have talked about how this bill
creates no water. Well, I hate to break it to people, but bills don't
create water. It rains. That is why the founding fathers of our State,
including Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, two United States
presidents, worked with the leadership of California to develop a
system that could keep water for 5 years so we could withstand 5 years
of drought.
I hate to have to use this, but this is how it works. Mr. Chairman,
the sun melts the snow. The snow gets stored in the reservoirs, in this
case this is Yosemite, where San Francisco gets all of its water. Then
the water runs out. That is how it works. That is how the system was
designed to work.
If you don't understand this chart, I have another chart. Once again,
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, because this one is a little basic. But,
sun--sun creates heat. Heat melts ice. Ice becomes water. Water we use
to drink and irrigate our crops. That is how this works.
Government doesn't create water. Government can only help to create
the infrastructure to hold the water in an area that is like California
that is always in a drought.
So our friends from the coastal areas of California like to have it
both ways. They like to drink their water from the Sierra Nevadas and
pipe it over so it never has to go into the delta. At the same time,
they dump their sewage into the delta that kills the fish.
So this bill was not designed to make it rain. Nobody can do that. We
don't need to measure clouds. This bill is designed to get the water
that we have in the wet years and hold it for the dry years.
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess we have come to some
agreement that the Government can't create water, and that is
productive. I guess what I would say is that we are at 12 percent of
snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which has functioned as our water
storage, and it is not there.
What I would say is that over decades, the State, the Federal
Government, the cities and agencies within California have worked to
deal with a framework for addressing this kind of situation, and the
bill, as it is constituted, would change that.
All my amendment does is give some assurance to communities that in
the event that there are water transfers that their particular water
budgets would not be affected.
I think it is a reasonable assurance to give. I think the author of
the bill might suggest it is already there. If it is, let's codify it,
and it will make the bill much better to provide that assurance to
cities, counties, agencies and the State that has worked so hard for
developing a framework for dealing with this very situation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of the
measure.
{time} 1715
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Chairman, we are coming to an end here and this bill
is about to get voted on. What we have got going on here, and we have
all figured it out from all the colorful presentations and all the
pictures on both sides, we are in a drought. We know that. We can't
make it rain; we also know that. But we also know that over the years
our forefathers invested to make sure that we can alleviate the pain of
what we are going through
[[Page H1641]]
today. We did not use that the way we were supposed to.
This is the third time this graph is coming up, and I think it is
important. All the different years that we have gone through a drought,
we have had decent allocations. The green here is the allocation for
2013, of 20 percent. Yet we had all this water in storage. What
happened to this water? When everybody talks about how their
communities are running out of water, this water should have been going
to those districts, should have been going to those homes.
Kids, parents, families, farmers, this water should have been going
to you to grow crops, to feed families. This is important. That is the
most important part about this. We had a lot of water. We lost it all.
It was dumped out into the ocean in the name of a fish.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VALADAO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are going back and forth with a lot of numbers here, and there's
something we need to understand. The allocation is a number that is
taken from the nature of the--that the water year is supposed to be.
That is the early allocation.
Mr. VALADAO. Reclaiming my time, the most important thing I have
noticed over time with the studies and the reports is that the food
prices do not affect the people in this room. We all know from all the
news articles, at least half of the people in this room, money is no
issue to you. For the average person sitting at home watching today,
this has a direct impact on you at home. It has a direct impact on you
at your grocery store, on your grocery bill.
This is an important piece of legislation, and I would love to see
some other ideas that could actually deliver some water, not more ideas
to take water from the valley and send it out to the ocean. We have
seen that. We have done that. We have survived on that. We need to come
up with some actual ideas and help protect water for our futures, for
our communities in southern California like the author would like to
see.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
113-340 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mrs. Napolitano of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Matsui of California.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Bera of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mrs. Capps of California.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Huffman of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. McNerney of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Peters of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 42]
AYES--179
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--239
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
[[Page H1642]]
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Chaffetz
Courtney
Daines
Gohmert
Gosar
Himes
Larson (CT)
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
Vargas
{time} 1744
Mr. CRAWFORD, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, and Messrs. FARENTHOLD and McHENRY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chair, on February 5, 2014, I was unable to cast my
vote for the amendment offered by Representative Napolitano to H.R.
3964, rollcall vote No. 42. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Matsui
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 228, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 43]
AYES--193
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--228
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Amodei
Chaffetz
Daines
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1749
Mr. REED changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CARDENAS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bera of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bera) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 226, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 44]
AYES--194
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
[[Page H1643]]
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--226
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Chaffetz
Daines
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Scalise
Schwartz
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1753
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 227, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 45]
AYES--194
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--227
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
[[Page H1644]]
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Amodei
Benishek
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Schwartz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1758
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 46]
AYES--189
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
Gutierrez
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
Serrano
Velazquez
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1801
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 47]
AYES--193
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
[[Page H1645]]
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Amodei
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1805
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Peters of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Peters) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 231, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 48]
AYES--192
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Amodei
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
[[Page H1646]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1809
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3964) to
address certain water-related concerns in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 472,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment 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.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3964 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end of the bill the following:
TITLE IX--PRESERVING LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES AND PROTECTING TRIBAL
SOVEREIGNTY
SEC. 901. PRESERVING LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES.
Nothing in this Act shall preempt or supersede State,
county, or local law, including State water law, that
prohibits the export of ground water to other areas.
SEC. 902. PROTECTING TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY.
Nothing in this Act shall undermine Native American tribal
sovereignty, or reduce the quantity or quality of the water
available to affected Indian tribes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which, unfortunately, will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Perhaps all of you have heard that there is a drought in the West. If
you haven't, I am here to tell you there is a serious drought in the
West--not just California, but throughout the West.
This particular piece of legislation is said to deal with the
drought. It does not. This legislation does two things that every one
of us ought to be concerned about.
First of all, it is a water grab. It takes water from somebody and
gives it to somebody else.
{time} 1815
Secondly, if you are interested in states' rights, if you are
interested in the power of a community to decide its own future, you
had better be paying attention to this bill. This bill is very, very
much about the power of a community, a power of a State to decide what
it wants to do with its water.
This is an issue of profound importance to every State in the West
that has a reclamation project, because this bill sets out for the very
first time the Federal Government overriding State constitution, in
this case the constitution of the State of California, State water law,
and contracts. This is serious stuff.
If this were to somehow solve the crisis in California, you may
accept it. But it does not. It does not create 1 gallon of water. It
simply steals what little water there is available from some and gives
it to another.
I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr. Bera).
Mr. BERA of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this motion because it will make
this bill better. This is about protecting existing State law, and the
current bill before us takes away State law.
It is about protecting our communities, our local rights, our county
rights. This motion will make this bill much better.
It is incredibly important to the residents in the five delta
counties and the folks that I represent, that they have water that they
can drink. This motion allows us to honor those State, county, and
local laws and makes this bill better. I urge my colleagues to support
the motion.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from
California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for offering this
motion to improve a deeply flawed bill.
California is home to over 100 federally recognized tribes, including
over two dozen in my congressional district. Many tribes, including the
Hoopa, the Yurok, and the Karuk in my district, depend on wild salmon
as both a vital source of economic opportunity and a respected way of
life.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield for
a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will it take my time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It will.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am afraid I cannot yield. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, some of the water impacted by this bill is
critically needed by tribes in my district. This bill explicitly waives
State and Federal law in a way that almost certainly would lead to
additional diversions from the Trinity River, which would undermine
tribal fishing and water rights.
The Yurok Tribe in my district has written about provisions in this
bill that they would undermine the Federal Government's ability to meet
its Federal trust obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance the
trust resources of that tribe.
This House has an obligation to clarify that this cynical bill would
not diminish any protected tribal water and fishing rights, and so I
urge a ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very, very clear with my
colleagues. California water issues go back to the very beginning of
the State, the Gold Rush, and as they have said, whiskey's for
drinking, water's for fighting.
Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to solve the current crisis in
California. What it does, it sets in motion a series of pieces of
legislation that will unravel 150 years of California water law and set
in place extraordinary chaos.
It does deliver water from one area to another area, literally
stealing that water and giving it to others.
It does override the California State Constitution and what we call
the Public Trust Doctrine, that is, the water of California belongs to
all the people of California. It is allocated by law, by precedent, and
by water rights that are allocated. This overrides that.
We don't want the Federal Government to go there if you care anything
about your State, about the water in your State, and about your
community. We need a long-term and short-term solution.
Fortunately, in the omnibus bill, we did reinstate the Federal
drought protection drought response act. We have many of the tools in
place to deal with
[[Page H1647]]
the drought today. What we don't have is money.
I would ask the majority to put up a bill that delivers the money to
carry out what is already in the law, which we did just 2 weeks ago.
Unfortunately, this bill puts in place a new water war which we do
not and cannot have at a time when we need to come together to solve
California water problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for any of you that were
listening to the debate as we debated the amendment in the general
debate on this, it is very, very evident that this bill is focused only
on California--only on California. And the reason I make that point,
because part of the reason that California is in this situation is
because of Federal law and Federal regulations.
Now, one of the ironies here, there is a lot of ironies when you look
at these motions to recommit, but my good friend, the sponsor of the
motion to recommit, I believe, was in office, or overseeing, at some
time when these water projects were passed for California. And here is
the interesting point, because he makes the very, what is a valid
point, one worries about preempting State law. But the Central Valley
Project in California preempted California law when it was passed.
Nobody heard anything about that then. The San Joaquin River project
preempted State law.
I just want to make this point. No other State is affected. This is a
California-centric piece of legislation.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a fact?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will not yield to the gentleman. He
didn't give me that courtesy earlier. I am not going to give him that
courtesy.
Finally, this is the final point that I want to make, and this is
important. This is important.
We heard the solution to the California water problems is embodied in
this bill. It is similar to a bill that we passed last year--with
bipartisan support, I might add. We heard, today, my friends on the
other side debate over and over, there are solutions. There are
solutions to this, there are solutions to that. You know something?
Nobody offered a solution. Furthermore, the other body in our
legislative process has yet to offer a solution.
Now, I can understand people not liking this solution. I understand
that. But somebody has to give us something to negotiate with. That is
what the issue is all about.
We think this is right. We will find out if it is right if the House
votes to pass this, and then we will go to the next process. But, for
goodness sakes, give California a chance to get a solution.
This MTR does nothing to advance that. Vote ``no'' on the MTR and
vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the question of
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 231, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 49]
AYES--191
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Amodei
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
{time} 1829
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
[[Page H1648]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 50]
AYES--229
Aderholt
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--191
Amash
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Chaffetz
Gohmert
Gosar
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Miller, Gary
Rush
Schwartz
Turner
Whitfield
{time} 1838
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________