[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 13, 2014

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3189) to 
     prohibit the conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use 
     agreement on the transfer, relinquishment, or other 
     impairment of any water right to the United States by the 
     Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, with Ms. Foxx in 
     the chair.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3189, a 
contradictory piece of legislation that would confuse the issue of 
water rights across the country.
  As initially written, this bill, which attempts to solve a dispute 
between Colorado ski resorts and the U.S. Forest Service, was so broad 
that it would have impacted the permitting process for the Conowingo 
dam in Maryland and our local efforts to restore threatened species in 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. While I appreciate that the Manager's 
amendment narrowly addresses the issue of dam permitting, I remain 
concerned that contradictory sections in this bill will create 
confusion and litigation that will prevent agencies from ensuring 
proper stewardship of federal lands.
  When private entities request permits to operate on public lands, 
federal agencies have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that 
their operations would not harm the resources on those lands. If 
agencies cannot guarantee protections, they may simply deny permits and 
prohibit private use. This bill, by attempting to rewrite years of 
water rights law in a few short pages, introduces so much uncertainty 
into the process that those denials are likely to become a common 
occurrence.
  Congressman Polis has offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that would restore the narrow focus on the disputed ski 
resort water rights. I urge my colleagues to support his effort and 
oppose the bill as currently written.

                          ____________________