[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 45 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E405-E407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3189
______
HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Friday, March 21, 2014
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:
Grand Junction Area
Chamber of Commerce,
Grand Junction, CO, November 22, 2013.
Hon. Scott Tipton,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jared Polis,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Representatives Tipton and Polis: As the
voice of business on Colorado's western slope, representing
over 900 businesses, we want to thank you for introducing
H.R. 3189 as a way to ensure that water rights are
continually protected in Colorado. It is absurd that the
federal government requires ski resorts to relinquish their
rights as a condition of granting permits, and this practice
must be stopped.
The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce offers legislative
guidelines on water that include the following points: Water
rights in Colorado and the West have been considered a vital
asset and personal property for many years. Water is an
essential component of the economic, social and environmental
quality of life that we enjoy. The preservation and
protection of private ownership and the right to use water,
its conservation, and its wise use are necessary to preserve
the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
western Colorado and the entire state. Furthermore,
industries in Colorado such as agriculture, small businesses,
tourism, and natural resource development require steady
reliable and high quality water supplies.
The passage of H.R. 3189 would ensure that tourism
operations as well as other businesses' private property
rights are protected when it comes to water. It will also
help the regulatory uncertainty and remove the concern that
if a ski area wants to grow or expand it will not lose its
property. This helps create a sure business climate in
Colorado. Thank you for sponsoring this bill. We urge the
passage of H.R. 3189.
Sincerely,
Michael Burke,
Chairman of the Board.
____
Garfield County, CO January 13, 2014.
Re Garfield County Board of County Commissioners' Letter of
support for pending legislation H.R. 3189: Water Rights
Protection Act
Hon. Scott Tipton,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Tipton: The purpose of this letter is
to provide you with unanimous support from Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners (the Board) for H.R. 3189,
``The Water Rights Protection Act.'' Many of the Counties in
Colorado are largely comprised of federal lands. For example,
2/3rd of Garfield County (or approximately 2,000 sq. miles)
is held and managed by either the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Many private
businesses and industries in Garfield County including but
not limited to ranching, agriculture, guiding and outfitting,
and the ski industry (Ski Sunlight) to name a few, rely on
the use of these federal lands to operate and thrive. Land
management decisions made on these lands can have a
significant socioeconomic impact on the County and, more
importantly, to the private businesses and activities that
have operated here even prior to statehood.
It is these businesses that make up key portions of the
fabric of our local communities and are important
contributors to our local economies. Moreover, they have
lawfully obtained and privately paid for water rights
necessary to the success of their operations. However,
because of their use of federal lands for their operations,
they also are also dependent on permit approvals from federal
agencies to continue operate in Garfield County. Specific to
pending H.R. 3189, the Board supports this legislation as it
protects existing water rights obtained and held by these
private businesses from an arbitrary and uncompensated taking
by the federal government through the use of conditions on
permits or any other regulatory mechanism. Moreover, it is
unconscionable that the federal government shall attempt to
hold these businesses hostage in order to `take' their water
rights without legal authority. To do so shall, no doubt,
render private businesses as victims and casualties of
government overreach and possible failure in the ability to
control their future.
We are encouraged to see such wide bi-partisan support for
this legislation which clearly underscores its value and
hopeful passage into law. It is rather unfortunate that its
takes legislation such as this to reaffirm what are long
standing existing rights, but the Board is pleased to see
your efforts be put to such a good cause on behalf of
citizens and businesses in Garfield County.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any
questions about the position of the Board outlined above.
Very truly yours,
John Martin,
Chairman, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners.
Mike Samson,
Commissioner, Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners.
Tom Jankovsky,
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2013.
Hon. Scott Tipton,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jared Polis,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Reps. Tipton and Polis: On behalf of more than 6
million Farm Bureau member families across the United States,
I commend you for your introduction of H.R. 3189, the Water
Rights Protection Act. The American Farm Bureau Federation
endorses the Tipton-Polis bill, and will work closely with
you to broaden bipartisan support for this measure and to
gain its swift consideration and approval by the House of
Representatives.
H.R. 3189 grants no new rights to any party, nor does it in
any way infringe on existing rights of individuals, states or
the federal government. This legislation simply reaffirms
what has been existing law for generations and which is
expressed in numerous places in federal law, including the
Mining Act of 1866; the 1897 Organic Act establishing the
U.S. Forest Service; the Taylor Grazing Act; and the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
There is no provision in federal law authorizing or
permitting the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
Management to compel owners of lawfully acquired water rights
to surrender those rights or to acquire them in the name of
the United States. Thus, H.R. 3189 does nothing more than
assure holders of BLM or Forest Service permits that their
lawfully acquired rights will not be abridged and that
federal agencies may not unlawfully use the permit process to
acquire rights they do not currently possess.
We look forward to working with you on this important
legislation and again commend you for your leadership in this
important area.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
____
Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, Oregon, October 8, 2013.
Re Support for ``Water Rights Protection Act'' (H.R. 3189)
Hon. Scott Tipton,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Tipton: On behalf of the Family Farm
Alliance, this letter expresses our formal support for your
``Water Rights Protection Act'' (H.R. 3189). This important
legislation would prohibit the conditioning of any federal
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.
The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries
in 16 Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission:
To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation
water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers. The Alliance
has long advocated that solutions to conflicts over the
allocation and use of water resources must begin with
recognition of the traditional deference to state water
allocation systems. Federal agencies must recognize and
respect state-based water rights and develop their management
decisions according to state law and abide by state decrees
defining both federal and non-federal rights. Federal
agencies need to work within the framework of existing prior
appropriation systems instead of attempting to fashion
solutions which circumvent current water rights allocation
and administration schemes.
Unfortunately, in recent years, some agencies within the
federal government have repeatedly demonstrated they will not
abide by this philosophy. These efforts constitute
[[Page E406]]
a federal overreach and a violation of private property
rights.
For example, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has attempted
to implement a permit condition that requires the transfer of
privately held water rights to the federal government as a
permit condition on National Forest System lands. There is no
compensation for the transfer of these privately held rights
despite the fact that many stakeholders have invested their
own capital in developing the rights. Additionally, federal
land management agencies are leveraging Western water users
in an effort to acquire additional water supplies for the
federal government by requiring water users to apply for
their rights under state law in the name of the United States
rather than for themselves. USFS continues to take private
water rights hostage through their permit conditions, despite
objections from elected officials, business owners, private
property advocates and a U.S. District Court ruling.
Our farmers and ranchers rely on their vested water rights
to secure operating loans, as well as irrigate crops and
water livestock. Federal agencies should not be able to
leverage those water rights against farming and ranching
families who have long depended upon federal permits and
leases to support actions like grazing.
The Water Rights Protection Act would protect communities,
businesses, recreation opportunities, farmers and ranchers as
well as other individuals that rely on privately held water
rights for their livelihood from federal takings. It would do
so by prohibiting federal agencies from extorting water
rights through the use of permits, leases, and other land
management arrangements, for which it would otherwise have to
pay just compensation under the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution. The Water Rights Protection Act protects
privately held water rights, prohibits federal takings, and
upholds state water law by:
Prohibiting agencies from implementing a permit condition
that requires the transfer of privately held water rights to
the federal government in order to receive or renew a permit
for the use of land;
Prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture from requiring water users to acquire rights
for the United States rather than for the water user
themselves;
Upholds longstanding federal deference to state water law;
Has no cost to the American taxpayer.
Some Family Farm Alliance members in Arizona and Colorado
have expressed some concerns with language contained in the
original bill. We understand that they are working with you
and Rep. Gosar to modify the language so that changes can be
easily made by the Water and Power Subcommittee. We support
H.R. 3189 with those changes.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide support for your
bill, which is very important to the family farmers and
ranchers of our membership. If you have any questions about
this letter, I encourage you or your staff to contact me at
(541)-892-6244.
Sincerely,
Dan Keppen,
Executive Director.
____
Durango Mountain Resort,
Durango, CO, October 15, 2013.
Re Letter of Support for Water Rights Protection Act (H.R.
3189)
Congressman Scott Tipton,
House of Representatives,
Durango, CO.
Congressman Jared Polis,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Tipton and Congressman Polis: Please
consider this letter as Durango Mountain Resort's formal
expression of support for the Water Rights Protection Act
(H.R. 3189). We applaud you for sponsoring this legislation
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. We also hope you
will consider our suggested amendment language to prohibit
the Secretaries from denying access to or us of a water
right.
Durango Mountain Resort (DMR) provides its local community
with significant jobs and recreational opportunities that
support the economy of Southwestern Colorado. And DMR has
consistently shown excellent stewardship of the environment,
taking careful measures to eliminate negative impact on its
land and resources. In fact, the resort received an ``A''
grade on its SACC Environmental Report Card this year. The
resort is proud of its grading and continuously strives to
exceed environmental standards.
Durango Mountain Resort, like many resorts in the southwest
region, relies heavily on access to its water supplies for
healthy operation of the resort. This is especially true
during periods of drought which have plagued southwestern
Colorado for several years now. DMR has proven resourceful in
its ability to come up with alternative methodologies to
produce snow during these dry winter years. Unfortunately,
due to recent restrictions imposed by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), the resort is no longer able to count on water from
the Cascade Aqueduct for its snowmaking water. The USFS
essentially shut down one of DMR's major water sources by
imposing an in-stream flow requirement that reduced DMR's
water supply by 95% of its historical amount. When DMR then
submitted an application to access and develop its prior
water rights in Hermosa Park, the USFS refused to process
DMR's application, denying DMR's rights that were reserved
through a prior USFS land exchange agreement with the USFS.
DMR believes these actions by the USFS are a blatant attempt
by the federal government to extort water rights through the
violation of existing water appropriation agreements and
systems.
DMR has offered countless remedies to the USFS to
circumvent the dire consequences these restrictions have
imposed. Each time the USFS has shown it is not willing to
consider alternative solutions even though it was made clear
that their actions could easily put the resort out of
business and unilaterally eliminate the jobs and recreational
offerings it provides to the community.
The Water Rights Protection Act would protect communities,
businesses, recreational attractions, farmers and ranchers,
as well as other individuals that rely on privately held
water rights for their livelihood, from federal takings. It
would do so by prohibiting federal agencies from extorting
water rights through the use of permits, leases, and other
land management arrangements, for which it would otherwise
have to pay just compensation under the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution. The Water Rights Protection Act protects
privately held water rights, prohibits federal takings, and
upholds state water law by:
Prohibiting agencies from implementing a permit condition
that requires the transfer of privately held water rights to
the federal government in order to receive or renew a permit
for the use of land;
Prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture from requiring water users to acquire rights
for the United States rather than for the water user
themselves;
Prohibiting the Secretaries from denying access to or use
of a water right;
Upholding longstanding federal deference to state water
law, and it has no cost to the American taxpayer.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide support for the
Water Rights Protection Act (H.R. 3189). This legislation is
very important to Durango Mountain Resort, its employees,
business partners, guests, and surrounding communities. If
you have any questions about this letter, please contact me
at 970-426-7242.
Sincerely,
Gary S. Derck,
President and CEO.
____
Colorado Ski Country USA,
October 4, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Longworth House
Office Building Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: I am writing on behalf of Colorado Ski
Country USA (CSCUSA), the industry association and global
voice of skiing and snowboarding in Colorado, in support of
H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. CSCUSA represents
twenty ski areas in Colorado that operate on National Forest
System lands under a special use permit from the U.S. Forest
Service. These public land resorts hosted over 6.3 million
skier visits in Colorado in the 2012/13 ski season alone, and
skiing and snowboarding constitute a $3.0 billion annual
economic impact to our state.
CSCUSA supports H.R. 3189 because it would prohibit the
U.S. Forest Service from requiring our resorts to transfer
valuable water rights to the Forest Service as a condition of
receiving a permit, or to apply for water rights in the name
of the United States, without compensation.
While the Forest Service insists that such actions would be
intended only to maintain the long-run viability of the
resorts as ski and snowboard areas, requiring resorts to
transfer the water rights they need to operate so as to
prevent their sale to a third party is a solution in search
of a problem. Moreover, required transfers of water rights
that are critical to ski area operations would politicize
their use, with each change in administration changing
priorities for water use.
Furthermore, requiring transfer of valuable water rights to
the NFS as a condition of receiving a permit raises serious
Fifth Amendment concerns. Our member resorts' water rights
were acquired and developed at great expense pursuant to
Colorado law, and in some cases predate the Forest Service
itself. If the NFS wants to secure its own water rights, it
should buy them on Colorado's well-regulated water market
like everyone else.
Thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 3189 and for
your leadership on this issue. It means a great deal to
CSCUSA and our member ski resorts operating across Colorado
on NFS lands.
Best Regards,
Melanie Mills,
President and CEO.
[[Page E407]]
____________________