[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 148 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8826-H8840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT OF 2014
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
770, I call up the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide short-term water
supplies to drought-stricken California, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 770, the
amendment printed in part C of House Report 113-646 is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5781
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``California
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Emergency projects.
Sec. 103. Temporary operational flexibility for first few storms of the
water year.
Sec. 104. Progress report.
Sec. 105. Status of surface storage studies.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF THIRD-PARTY WATER RIGHTS
Sec. 201. Offset for State Water Project.
Sec. 202. Area of origin protections.
Sec. 203. No redirected adverse impacts.
Sec. 204. Allocations For Sacramento Valley Contractors.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Effect on existing obligations.
Sec. 302. Termination of authorities.
TITLE I--CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Central valley project.--The term ``Central Valley
Project'' has the meaning given the term in section 3403 of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4707).
(2) Delta.--The term ``Delta'' means the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and the Suisun Marsh, as defined in sections
12220 and 29101 of the California Public Resources Code.
(3) Negative impact on the long-term survival.--The term
``negative impact on the long-term survival'' means to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery
of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,
numbers, or distribution of that species.
(4) Salmonid biological opinion.--The term ``salmonid
biological opinion'' means the biological opinion issued by
the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009.
(5) Secretaries.--The term ``Secretaries'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Commerce; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior.
(6) Smelt biological opinion.--The term ``smelt biological
opinion'' means the biological opinion on the Long-Term
Operational Criteria and Plan for coordination of the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project issued by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service on December 15, 2008.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(8) State water project.--The term ``State Water Project''
means the water project described by California Water Code
section 11550 et seq. and operated by the California
Department of Water Resources.
SEC. 102. EMERGENCY PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the priority of individuals or
entities, including those with Sacramento River Settlement
Contracts, that have priority to the diversion and use of
water over water rights held by the United States for
operations of the Central Valley Project and over rights held
by the State for operations of the State Water Project and
the United States obligation to make a substitute supply of
water available to the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors, the Secretaries shall direct the operations of
the Central Valley Project and allow the State Water Project
to provide the maximum quantity of water supplies possible to
Central Valley Project agricultural, municipal and
industrial, and refuge service and repayment contractors, and
State Water Project contractors, by approving, consistent
with applicable laws (including regulations)--
(1) any project or operations to provide additional water
supplies if there is any possible way whatsoever that the
Secretaries can do so unless the project or operations
constitute a highly inefficient way of providing additional
water supplies; and
(2) any projects or operations as quickly as possible based
on available information to address the emergency conditions.
(b) Mandate.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
applicable Secretary shall--
(1) authorize and implement actions to ensure that the
Delta Cross Channel Gates remain open to the maximum extent
practicable using findings from the United States Geological
Survey on diurnal behavior of juvenile salmonids, timed to
maximize the peak flood tide period and provide water supply
and water quality benefits, consistent with operational
criteria and monitoring set forth in the California State
Water Resources Control Board's Order Approving a Temporary
Urgency Change in License and Permit Terms in Response to
Drought Conditions, effective January 31, 2014, or a
successor order;
(2)(A) implement turbidity control strategies that allow
for increased water deliveries for the Central Valley Project
and State Water Project while avoiding a negative impact on
the long-term survival delta smelt
[[Page H8827]]
(Hypomesus transpacificus) due to entrainment at Central
Valley Project and State Water Project pumping plants;
(B) operating within the ranges provided for in the smelt
biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion to
minimize water supply reductions for the Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project, manage reverse flow in
Old and Middle Rivers at -5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
unless current scientific data indicate a less negative Old
and Middle River flow is necessary to avoid a negative impact
on the long-term survival of the listed species; and
(C) show in writing that any determination to manage OMR
reverse flow at rates less negative than -5000 cubic feet per
second is necessary to avoid a significant negative impact on
the long-term survival of the Delta smelt, including an
explanation of the data examined and the connection between
those data and the choice made prior to reducing pumping to a
rate less negative than -5000 cfs;
(3) adopt a 1:1 inflow to export ratio for the increment of
increased flow of the San Joaquin River, as measured as a 3-
day running average at Vernalis during the period from April
1 through May 31, resulting from voluntary sale, transfers,
or exchanges of water from agencies with rights to divert
water from the San Joaquin River or its tributaries on the
condition that a proposed sale, transfer, or exchange under
this paragraph may only proceed if the Secretary of the
Interior determines that the environmental effects of the
proposed sale, transfer, or exchange are consistent with
effects permissible under applicable law (including
regulations), and provided that Delta conditions are suitable
to allow movement of the acquired, transferred, or exchanged
water through the Delta consistent with the Central Valley
Project's and the State Water Project's permitted water
rights;
(4) issue all necessary permit decisions under the
authority of the Secretaries within 30 days of receiving a
completed application by the State to place and use temporary
barriers or operable gates in Delta channels to improve water
quantity and quality for Central Valley Project and State
Water Project contractors and other water users, which
barriers or gates should provide benefits for species
protection and in-Delta water user water quality and shall be
designed such that formal consultations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) would not
be necessary;
(5)(A) complete all requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
necessary to make final permit decisions on water transfer
requests associated with voluntarily fallowing nonpermanent
crops in the State, within 30 days of receiving such a
request; and
(B) allow any water transfer request associated with
fallowing to maximize the quantity of water supplies
available for nonhabitat uses as long as the fallowing and
associated water transfer are in compliance with applicable
Federal laws (including regulations);
(6) allow any North of Delta agricultural water service
contractor with unused Central Valley Project water to take
delivery of such unused water through April 15, of the
contract year immediately following the contract year in
which such water was allocated, if--
(A) the contractor requests the extension; and
(B) the requesting contractor certifies that, without the
extension, the contractor would have insufficient supplies to
adequately meet water delivery obligations;
(7) to the maximum extent possible based on the
availability and quality of groundwater and without causing
land subsidence--
(A) meet the Level 2 and Level 4 water supply needs of
units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the Central
Valley of California, the Gray Lodge, Los Banos, Volta, North
Grasslands, and Mendota State wildlife management areas, and
the Grasslands Resources Conservation District in the Central
Valley of California through the improvement or installation
of wells to use groundwater resources and the purchase of
water from willing sellers; and
(B) make a quantity of Central Valley Project water
obtained from the measures implemented under subparagraph (A)
available to Central Valley Project water service
contractors; and
(8) implement instream and offsite projects in the Delta
and upstream in the Sacramento River and San Joaquin basins,
in coordination with the California Department of Water
Resources and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
that offset the effects on species listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) due to actions taken under this Act.
(c) Other Agencies.--To the extent that a Federal agency
other than agencies headed by the Secretaries has a role in
approving projects described in subsections (a) and (b), the
provisions of this section shall apply to those Federal
agencies.
(d) Accelerated Project Decision and Elevation.--
(1) In general.--Upon the request of the State, the heads
of Federal agencies shall use the expedited procedures under
this subsection to make final decisions relating to a Federal
project or operation to provide additional water supplies or
address emergency drought conditions pursuant to subsections
(a) and (b).
(2) Request for resolution.--
(A) In general.--Upon the request of the State, the head of
an agency referred to in subsection (a), or the head of
another Federal agency responsible for carrying out a review
of a project, as applicable, the Secretary of the Interior
shall convene a final project decision meeting with the heads
of all relevant Federal agencies to decide whether to approve
a project to provide emergency water supplies.
(B) Meeting.--The Secretary of the Interior shall convene a
meeting requested under subparagraph (A) not later than 7
days after receiving the meeting request.
(3) Notification.--Upon receipt of a request for a meeting
under this subsection, the Secretary of the Interior shall
notify the heads of all relevant Federal agencies of the
request, including the project to be reviewed and the date
for the meeting.
(4) Decision.--Not later than 10 days after the date on
which a meeting is requested under paragraph (2), the head of
the relevant Federal agency shall issue a final decision on
the project in writing.
(5) Meeting convened by secretary.--The Secretary of the
Interior may convene a final project decision meeting under
this subsection at any time, at the discretion of the
Secretary, regardless of whether a meeting is requested under
paragraph (2).
SEC. 103. TEMPORARY OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FIRST FEW
STORMS OF THE WATER YEAR.
(a) In General.--Consistent with avoiding a negative impact
on the long-term survival in the short-term upon listed fish
species beyond the range of those authorized under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and
other environmental protections under subsection (d), the
Secretaries shall authorize the Central Valley Project and
the State Water Project, combined, to operate at levels that
result in negative Old and Middle River flows at -7500 cubic
feet per second (based on United States Geological Survey
gauges on Old and Middle Rivers) daily average for 28
cumulative days after October 1, as described in subsection
(b).
(b) Days of Temporary Operational Flexibility.--The
temporary operational flexibility described in subsection (a)
shall be authorized on days that the California Department of
Water Resources determines the daily average river flow of
the Sacramento River is at, or above, 17,000 cubic feet per
second as measured at the Sacramento River at Freeport gauge
maintained by the United States Geologic Survey.
(c) Compliance With ESA Authorizations.--In carrying out
this section, the Secretaries may continue to impose any
requirements under the smelt and salmonid biological opinions
during any period of temporary operational flexibility as
they determine are reasonably necessary to avoid additional
negative impacts on the long-term survival of a listed fish
species beyond the range of those authorized under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(d) Other Environmental Protections.--
(1) The Secretaries' actions under this section shall be
consistent with applicable regulatory requirements under
state law, including State Water Resources Control Board
Decision 1641, as it may be implemented in any given year.
(2) During the first flush of sediment out of the Delta in
each water year, and provided that such determination is
based upon objective evidence, OMR flow may be managed at
rates less negative than -5000 cubic feet per second for a
minimum duration to avoid movement of adult Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) to areas in the southern Delta
that would be likely to increase entrainment at Central
Valley Project and State Water Project pumping plants.
(3) This section shall not affect the application of the
salmonid biological opinion from April 1 to May 31, unless
the Secretary of Commerce finds that some or all of such
applicable requirements may be adjusted during this time
period to provide emergency water supply relief without
resulting in additional adverse effects beyond those
authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In
addition to any other actions to benefit water supply, the
Secretary and the Secretary of Commerce shall consider
allowing through-Delta water transfers to occur during this
period.
(4) During operations under this section, the Secretary of
the Interior, in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall undertake a monitoring
program and other data gathering to ensure incidental take
levels are not exceeded, and to identify potential negative
impacts and actions, if any, necessary to mitigate impacts of
the temporary operational flexibility to species listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(e) Technical Adjustments to Target Period.--If, before
temporary operational flexibility has been implemented on 28
cumulative days, the Secretaries operate the Central Valley
Project and the State Water Project combined at levels that
result in Old and Middle River flows less negative than -7500
cubic feet per second during days of temporary operational
flexibility as defined in subsection (b), the duration of
such operation shall not be counted toward the 28 cumulative
days specified in subsection (a).
(f) Emergency Consultation; Effect on Running Averages.--
(1) If necessary to implement the provisions of this
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall use the
emergency consultation
[[Page H8828]]
procedures under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its
implementing regulation at section 402.05, title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, to temporarily adjust the operating
criteria under the biological opinions, solely for the 28
cumulative days of temporary operational flexibility--
(A) no more than necessary to achieve the purposes of this
section consistent with the environmental protections in
subsections (c) and (d); and
(B) including, as appropriate, adjustments to ensure that
the actual flow rates during the periods of temporary
operational flexibility do not count toward the 5-day and 14-
day running averages of tidally filtered daily Old and Middle
River flow requirements under the biological opinions.
(2) At the conclusion of the 28 cumulative days of
temporary operational flexibility, the Secretary of the
Interior shall not reinitiate consultation on these adjusted
operations, and no mitigation shall be required, if the
effects on listed fish species of these operations under this
section remain within the range of those authorized under the
Endangered Species Act. If the Secretary of the Interior
reinitiates consultation, no mitigation measures shall be
required.
(g) Level of Detail Required for Analysis.--In articulating
the determinations required under this section, the
Secretaries shall fully satisfy the requirements herein but
shall not be expected to provide a greater level of
supporting detail for the analysis than feasible to provide
within the short time frame permitted for timely decision-
making in response to changing conditions in the Delta.
SEC. 104. PROGRESS REPORT.
Ninety days after the date of the enactment of this Act and
every 90 days thereafter, the Secretaries shall provide a
progress report describing the implementation of sections
101, 102, and 103 to the Committee on Natural Resources in
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources in the Senate.
SEC. 105. STATUS OF SURFACE STORAGE STUDIES.
One year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide a progress report on
the status of feasibility studies undertaken pursuant to
section 103(d)(1) to the Committee on Natural Resources in
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources in the Senate. The report shall include
timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact
statements, final environmental impact statements, and
Records of Decision.
TITLE II--PROTECTION OF THIRD-PARTY WATER RIGHTS
SEC. 201. OFFSET FOR STATE WATER PROJECT.
(a) Implementation Impacts.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall confer with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife in connection with the implementation of this Act on
potential impacts to any consistency determination for
operations of the State Water Project issued pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1.
(b) Additional Yield.--If, as a result of the application
of this Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife--
(1) revokes the consistency determinations pursuant to
California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 that are
applicable to the State Water Project;
(2) amends or issues one or more new consistency
determinations pursuant to California Fish and Game Code
section 2080.1 in a manner that directly or indirectly
results in reduced water supply to the State Water Project as
compared with the water supply available under the smelt
biological opinion and the salmonid biological opinion; or
(3) requires take authorization under section 2081 for
operation of the State Water Project in a manner that
directly or indirectly results in reduced water supply to the
State Water Project as compared with the water supply
available under the smelt biological opinion and the salmonid
biological opinion,
and as a consequence of the Department's action, Central
Valley Project yield is greater than it would have been
absent the Department's actions, then that additional yield
shall be made available to the State Water Project for
delivery to State Water Project contractors to offset losses
resulting from the Department's action.
(c) Notification Related to Environmental Protections.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall immediately notify the
Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in
writing if the Secretary of the Interior determines that
implementation of the smelt biological opinion and the
salmonid biological opinion consistent with this Act reduces
environmental protections for any species covered by the
opinions.
SEC. 202. AREA OF ORIGIN PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior is directed,
in the operation of the Central Valley Project, to adhere to
California's water rights laws governing water rights
priorities and to honor water rights senior to those held by
the United States for operation of the Central Valley
Project, regardless of the source of priority, including any
appropriative water rights initiated prior to December 19,
1914, as well as water rights and other priorities perfected
or to be perfected pursuant to California Water Code Part 2
of Division 2. Article 1.7 (commencing with section 1215 of
chapter 1 of part 2 of division 2, sections 10505, 10505.5,
11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and sections 12200 to
12220, inclusive).
(b) Diversions.--Any action undertaken by the Secretaries
pursuant to both this Act and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) that requires
that diversions from the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin
River watersheds upstream of the Delta be bypassed shall not
be undertaken in a manner that alters the water rights
priorities established by California law.
(c) endangered species act.--Nothing in this title alters
the existing authorities provided to and obligations placed
upon the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), as amended.
(d) Contracts.--With respect to individuals and entities
with water rights on the Sacramento River, the mandates of
this section may be met, in whole or in part, through a
contract with the Secretary executed pursuant to section 14
of Public Law 76-260, 53 Stat. 1187 (43 U.S.C. 389) that is
in conformance with the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts
renewed by the Secretary in 2005.
SEC. 203. NO REDIRECTED ADVERSE IMPACTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure
that, except as otherwise provided for in a water service or
repayment contract, actions taken in compliance with legal
obligations imposed pursuant to or as a result of this Act,
including such actions under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and other
applicable Federal and State laws, shall not directly or
indirectly--
(1) result in the involuntary reduction of water supply or
fiscal impacts to individuals or districts who receive water
from either the State Water Project or the United States
under water rights settlement contracts, exchange contracts,
water service contracts, repayment contracts, or water supply
contracts; or
(2) cause redirected adverse water supply or fiscal impacts
to those within the Sacramento River watershed, the San
Joaquin River watershed or the State Water Project service
area.
(b) Costs.--To the extent that costs are incurred solely
pursuant to or as a result of this Act and would not
otherwise have been incurred by any entity or public or local
agency or subdivision of the State of California, such costs
shall not be borne by any such entity, agency, or subdivision
of the State of California, unless such costs are incurred on
a voluntary basis.
(c) Rights and Obligations Not Modified or Amended.--
Nothing in this Act shall modify or amend the rights and
obligations of the parties to any existing--
(1) water service, repayment, settlement, purchase, or
exchange contract with the United States, including the
obligation to satisfy exchange contracts and settlement
contracts prior to the allocation of any other Central Valley
Project water; or
(2) State Water Project water supply or settlement contract
with the State.
SEC. 204. ALLOCATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONTRACTORS.
(a) Allocations.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Interior 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:
(A) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Wet'' year.
(B) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in an ``Above Normal'' year.
(C) Not less than 100 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Below Normal'' year that is preceded by an ``Above
Normal'' or a ``Wet'' year.
(D) Not less than 50 percent of their contract quantities
in a ``Dry'' year that is preceded by a ``Below Normal,'' an
``Above Normal,'' or a ``Wet'' year.
(E) In all other years not identified herein, the
allocation percentage for existing Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors within the Sacramento
River Watershed shall not be less than twice the allocation
percentage to south-of-Delta Central Valley Project
agricultural water service contractors, up to 100 percent;
provided, that nothing herein shall preclude an allocation to
existing Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors within the Sacramento River Watershed that is
greater than twice the allocation percentage to South-of-
Delta Central Valley Project agricultural water service
contractors.
(2) Conditions.--The Secretary's actions under paragraph
(a) shall be subject to--
(A) the priority of individuals or entities with Sacramento
River water rights, including those with Sacramento River
Settlement Contracts, that have priority to the diversion and
use of Sacramento River water over water rights held by the
United States for operations of the Central Valley Project;
(B) the United States obligation to make a substitute
supply of water available to the San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors; and
(C) the Secretary's obligation to make water available to
managed wetlands pursuant to section 3406(d) of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575).
(b) Protection of Municipal and Industrial Supplies.--
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be deemed to--
[[Page H8829]]
(1) modify any provision of a water service contract that
addresses municipal and industrial water shortage policies of
the Secretary;
(2) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to adopt
or modify municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
(3) affect or limit the authority of the Secretary to
implement municipal and industrial water shortage policies;
or
(4) 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) No Effect on Allocations.--This section shall not--
(1) affect the allocation of water to Friant Division
contractors; or
(2) result in the involuntary reduction in contract water
allocations to individuals or entities with contracts to
receive water from the Friant Division.
(d) Program for Water Rescheduling.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall develop and implement a program, not later
than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to
provide for the opportunity for existing Central Valley
Project agricultural water service contractors within the
Sacramento River Watershed to reschedule water, provided for
under their Central Valley Project water service contracts,
from one year to the next.
(e) 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.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.
Nothing in this Act preempts or modifies any existing
obligation of the United States under Federal reclamation law
to operate the Central Valley Project in conformity with
State law, including established water rights priorities.
SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITIES.
This Act shall expire on September 30, 2016, or the date on
which the Governor of the State suspends the state of drought
emergency declaration, whichever is later.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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).
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. 5781.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5781, the California
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, as introduced by our colleague
from California (Mr. Valadao).
Today the House meets once again to provide a solution to the ongoing
water crisis in California. The House has been on record twice to
provide solutions, and here we are, and we must act again. Although
this bill is different from the two prior attempts and reflects
significant bipartisan progress towards enacting a solution, we must
provide relief, even if it is short-term relief before this Congress
adjourns. It is unacceptable for us to give up when Californians are
starving and their communities are literally drying up.
Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent
on irrigated water to support our local economy and our agriculture
industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable
water source, 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 in 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--Mr. Speaker, that is billion with a B--gallons of water
away from farmers.
Mr. Speaker, let me equate that: 300 billion gallons of water is
nearly 1 million acre-feet of water. What is an acre-foot? An acre-foot
of water--for 1 year, that is 12 inches of water for a year that was
diverted from these farmers.
As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment
reached 40 percent in some communities, and thousands of acres of
fertile farmland dried up. The same thing is happening today.
As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled
to Fresno, California, twice and have 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 livelihoods restored.
We have seen farmers who normally help feed the Nation being sent to
wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, being
served carrots imported from China.
I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California,
but it has a rippling effect across the entire Nation.
California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and
provides a significant share of 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, higher
unemployment, and increased reliance on foreign food sources.
Unlike the last time this body acted on this issue, the Senate did
pass its version of the bill in June of this year. I commend Senator
Feinstein for her efforts to pass that short-term bill. However, since
the bills were so different in their scope, those interested in
productive conversations to bridge differences have negotiated in good
faith over the last 6 months.
We got very close to a resolution but more time was necessary on
agreeing to a long-term bill. In the interim, the measure before us
today reflects much of what the Senate passed earlier this year and
agreed to in our negotiations to bring some short-term water supply
relief to many of those communities in need.
This bill simply allows us to capture some water from storms in this
and the next water year and improves data quality when it comes to the
existing biological opinions on smelt and salmon. It also protects
those communities in the north that are in relatively abundant water
areas.
The entire bill, Mr. Speaker, sunsets in September of 2016 to allow
more time to negotiate a longer-term solution that not only could help
California but other States in the West as well.
This bill is not perfect, but it is a short-term bridge based on
productive negotiations between those who want sensible solutions to
the California water crisis. This bill, while very limited in scope,
helps protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and
workers and communities that are in dire need of water.
The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer for
Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an
emergency for many, and time is running out. Those communities facing
massive unemployment deserve nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues in the last two Congresses for
working together to get us this solution. This is the latest iteration
of that, and I want to commend them.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman Valadao's bill, H.R. 5781, the California
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, is a northern California drought
relief bill; it isn't a California drought relief act.
It was introduced last week without hearings, without markups,
without consultation with the House Democrats, and without any
consultation or input from local water agencies, State agencies,
cities, and/or tribes.
This bill is being rushed to the floor without the input of critical
California leaders throughout the State. It focuses primarily on
providing more Bay-
[[Page H8830]]
Delta water to Central Valley farmers at the expense of other users.
This bill would require mandatory increases in pumping to Central
Valley agriculture, which could force water managers throughout the
State to cut water deliveries to southern California, to other urban
water users, and, of course, to fisheries, which is a mainstay of many
of the tribes in California.
{time} 1415
This could also lead to less fresh water in the delta and higher
levels of salt and contamination in the water being pumped down to
southern California.
The White House states the President will veto this bill because ``it
fails to equitably address critical elements of California's complex
water challenges,'' and ``the bill appears to include a number of
potentially conflicting mandates which can cause confusion and
undermine environmental laws, making it ripe for future litigation.''
Senator Boxer says she opposes the bill because ``it could reignite
the water wars by overriding critical State and Federal protections of
all of California.''
Mr. Speaker, I have some of the statements of opposition. One of them
is The Sacramento Bee who has come out opposing the bill because ``any
legislation affecting California water policy deserves a full hearing
with input from the varied interests in northern California, the
Central Valley, and the south.''
Mr. Speaker, we must work in a bipartisan manner to address this
drought crisis for the whole State and certainly not in secret and
behind closed doors.
I have introduced H.R. 5363, the Water in the 21st Century Act, and
Representative Huffman has introduced H.R. 4239, which would provide
drought relief to all of California with its water conservation
programs, its water recycling projects, its groundwater improvement
operations and storm water capture solutions, including desalination
and title XVI.
House Democratic proposals have been excluded from this bill, H.R.
5781. There have been past attempts in past Congresses to pass
certainly some proposals our legislation has proposed today, and it has
failed.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record statements of opposition to
this bill from the White House, from Senator Boxer, The Sacramento Bee,
American Rivers, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Golden Gate Salmon Association,
the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association, and the California
Environmental Water Caucus, just to name a few.
Mr. Speaker, I urge us not to pass this, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2014.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 5781--The California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
(Rep. Valadao, R-CA, and 6 cosponsors)
The Administration opposes H.R. 5781 because it fails to
equitably address critical elements of California's complex
water challenges. The Administration appreciates the efforts
by the bill authors to address concerns raised by the
Administration regarding H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act. However, because
H.R. 5781 makes operational determinations regarding the use
of limited water resources during the ongoing drought, and
contains many new provisions that could lead to unintended
consequences or further litigation, the Administration cannot
support the bill in its current form.
The Administration takes seriously the ongoing drought that
has affected communities, producers and water users across
much of the country, including the especially hard hit State
of California. Since the President's visit to Fresno,
California earlier this year the Administration has
undertaken a number of steps to help those most affected by
drought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has directed
millions of dollars in food, conservation and emergency water
assistance to tens of thousands of residents in areas hardest
hit by drought. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided cost-
share assistance for nine water reclamation and reuse
projects in the State as well as millions of dollars in
grants to build long-term resiliency to drought.
Moreover, the President has directed Federal agencies to
work with state and local officials in real-time to maximize
limited water supplies, prioritize public health and safety,
meet state water quality requirements, and ensure a balanced
approach to providing for the water needs of people,
agriculture, businesses, power, imperiled species and the
environment. Among other things, these efforts took form in a
2014 Drought Operations Plan, prepared in close coordination
with the State, and the Administration is already taking
steps to prepare a new drought plan for 2015 based on lessons
learned and the best available science during the current
year.
H.R. 5781 was introduced on December 2 and is being
considered in the few remaining days of this session without
a hearing or opportunity for the public to review and provide
comment. In particular, the bill appears to include a number
of potentially conflicting mandates which can create
confusion and undermine environmental laws, making it ripe
for future litigation. Given the complexity of California
water issues, policy determinations over the use of scarce
water resources should be developed in an open and
transparent manner, with an ability for the public, affected
stakeholders, and Federal, state and local officials to
review and provide comment and feedback. The Administration
stands ready to work with Congress in this regard.
For these reasons, if the President were presented with
H.R. 5781, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto
the bill.
____
Senator Barbara Boxer, D-California
H.R. 5781
``I have carefully studied the Republican water bill and I
am dismayed that this measure could reignite the water wars
by overriding critical state and federal protections for
California. The GOP's proposal would dictate specific pumping
levels--regardless of the opinions of scientists--which could
jeopardize our state's salmon fishing industry.
``We have communities across the state that are hurting
from this drought, so we need a balanced approach that
doesn't pit one stakeholder against another, and meets the
needs of all of California's water users.''
____
[From The Sacramento Bee]
Emergency Drought Bill Deserves To Die
(By the Editorial Board)
House Republicans intend to jam through a California
drought-relief bill early next week that would suspend some
state water rights and environmental law to maximize water
diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
This is no way to address an issue as important to
California as water. It is doomed to fail in the Senate and
deserves to die. California's congressional delegation should
be working on a compromise that involves all interested
parties, not ramming through a bill during the final days of
the lame-duck session.
Late Friday, the Obama administration came out in
opposition to the bill, saying in a statement that ``it fails
to equitably address critical elements of California's
complex water challenges'' and ``the bill appears to include
a number of potentially conflicting mandates which can create
confusion and undermine environmental laws, making it ripe
for future litigation.''
Central Valley Republicans have proposed the bill, HR 5781,
and plan to bring it to a vote as early as Monday without
going through committee hearings. The new bill deserves a
full public hearing so that we know its full implications for
California.
The House Rules Committee won't allow amendments to this
problematic bill, which is unfortunate. The 26-page bill is
replete with technical language, directed at environmental
laws and regulations governing California water policy.
Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, told the Rules Committee
that the bill, like a previous version, would micromanage the
state's water system without input from federal, state or
local water officials. He warned that it would violate state
environmental laws, misstates federal water contract law, and
would have negative implications for fisheries and Indian
water rights.
Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, who introduced the
California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, claimed the
bill has bipartisan support and approval of California's
Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
Boxer, however, made clear she opposes the bill, saying in
an emailed statement to The Bee: ``The problem here is that
Republicans insisted on a secretive process, and only bad
things can happen when your process is secretive . . . and
now they are trying jam through legislation that will only
reignite California's water wars.''
On Friday, Feinstein said in an email to The Bee, ``There
are some provisions in HR 5781 I support and there are some
provisions I don't support, so we'll have to wait and see
what action the House takes.''
Feinstein dropped talks with House Republicans in November
and said she would reopen negotiations in January. That is a
reasonable approach. Any legislation affecting California
water policy deserves a full hearing with input from the
varied interest in Northern California, the Central Valley
and the south.
The bill is backed by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,
R-Bakersfield, Rep. Tom McClintock; R-Elk Grove; Rep. Doug
LaMalfa, R-Richvale, and others who would export water to
Central Valley and Southern
[[Page H8831]]
California at the expense of the environment and other water
users.
The drought is hurting farmers and cities; it is
challenging for all of us. However, a near-unanimous
California Legislature approved placing a $7.5 billion water
bond measure before voters, showing that changes in state
water policy can be achieved through consensus.
But trying to remedy the problem for some Californians
while excluding others from the discussion will, like Boxer
said, reignite water wars.
____
Audubon California, American Rivers, Defenders of
Wildlife, California Waterfowl Association, Center for
Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Conservatives
for Responsible Stewardship, Earthjustice, Endangered
Species Coalition, Epic-Environmental Protection
Information Center Environment America, Friends of the
Earth, Greenpeace, Institute for Fisheries Resources,
Klamath Forest Alliance, League of Conservation Voters,
National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense
Council, National Wildlife Refuge Association,
Northcoast Environmental Center, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Sierra Club,
The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists,
December 5, 2014.
PLEASE OPPOSE H.R. 5781
Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 5781,
(Valadao, R-CA), a bill that would dramatically weaken
protections for salmon, migratory birds, and other fish and
wildlife in California's Bay-Delta estuary, and the thousands
of fishing jobs in California and Oregon that depend on the
health of these species.
This legislation would roll back environmental protections
for salmon, migratory birds, endangered fish and wildlife,
and other native species in California's Bay-Delta watershed,
in order to significantly increase water exports out of the
largest estuary on the West Coast. The bill would revise and
override protections required under the Endangered Species
Act and substitute political judgment for existing scientific
determinations. It would undermine protections for migratory
birds, expediting water transfers that could harm wildlife
habitat and undermining water supply for the state and
federal wildlife refuges. This complex legislation could
greatly interfere with state water rights and cripple the
ability of state and federal agencies to manage limited water
resources for all beneficial uses, yet it has never been
subject to a single committee hearing or input from the
State, hunting organizations, sport and commercial fishermen,
tribes, and conservation groups.
California's ongoing drought--not federal environmental
laws protecting salmon and other fish and wildlife--is the
reason for low water supplies across the state. H.R. 5781
attempts to scapegoat environmental protections for the lack
of rain and snow, and it threatens thousands of fishing jobs
in California and Oregon that depend on healthy salmon runs
from the Bay-Delta. The closure of the salmon fishery in 2008
and 2009 resulted in thousands of lost jobs in these states.
The livelihoods of commercial and recreational salmon
fishermen, Delta farmers, fishing guides, tackle shops, and
communities across California and along the West Coast depend
on the environmental protections that H R. 5781 would
eliminate.
California has already lost more than 90 percent of its
existing wetlands and in the current drought conditions,
migratory birds are crowding onto the small remaining habitat
areas, suffering from decreased food and increased risk of
disease. H.R. 5781 would further exacerbate the extremely
difficult conditions facing migratory birds in California by
threatening the minimal water supply and degrading conditions
on federal and state wildlife refuges, and impacting the
important private lands that these birds rely upon as they
migrate up and down the Pacific Flyway.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose H.R.
5781 and any other last-minute attempts to undercut the
existing balance of rights among the users of the California
Bay-Delta watershed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of
the previous bill that I had mentioned in my opening remarks.
Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on behalf of my legislation.
Mr. Speaker, since taking office, ensuring the Central Valley has
reliable access to clean, high-quality water has been my number one
priority. My constituents are suffering through a drought, and they
have suffered more these last few years because of the laws that are in
place today.
We have got regulations that require that we basically send water
that should be going to communities, to homes, and to farms that create
jobs and grow food, and that water is being diverted out to the ocean
all in the name of a fish.
We have got so many different people living in this valley, from farm
workers, to farmers, and to business owners, all different types of
folks that represent this, and this has affected every single one of
them. It has affected everybody down to their just regular daily lives.
When you think about how simple it is for someone to just turn on the
faucet, be able to take water, put it in a cup, and put it in their
coffeepot in the morning, that is what we are talking about today.
We have had wells go dry. We have got communities in my district
today that are literally watching and in the process of looking to
drill four, five, sometimes six wells, just to get enough water into
the household. It is something that is very frustrating.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is a very, very simple patch.
It is a short-term bill. As the chairman mentioned, the bill expires at
the end of September next year, or when the Governor decides the
drought declaration is over.
The bill is simple, and it is very specific that it does keep in
place all protections of the Endangered Species Act, the biological
opinions and others that have been put in place to protect the
environment, but this does give a little more flexibility to those
agencies to allow some pumping to help these poor communities.
We have got people in food lines today. We have got people who are
trying to feed their families and trying to earn an honest day's wage,
and this is actually hurting those people, the people that my friends
across the aisle always claim to want to help the most.
This is a simple, very small piece of legislation, the majority of
which was introduced by a Democrat in the Senate, with just a few
provisions that were changed. This isn't a surprise legislation that we
passed out of the House, a lot more complicated, a lot more
comprehensive. It covers the issue, and it creates a long-term
solution. Again, this is a short-term solution that helps provide some
security.
The bill helps all Californians, especially those south of the delta,
including those in southern California, because there is about 20
million Californians that rely on water from northern California.
Across the board, this is a piece of legislation that helps all people
in California be successful, feed their families, and take care of
their daily life. It is something that I feel is very reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, we work across the aisle as much as we can. We have
worked on this issue for 6 months now, but it is a complicated issue,
and we have a lot of outside interests that want to see this prevented,
but it is all, again, over a few bad laws that need to be changed.
All we are asking today is for a short-term fix, give us enough time
to give these people a little bit of breathing room, a little bit of
fresh water for their houses, and something that could really, truly
make a difference in their lives, and they are trying to stop it. It
truly is sad. We are here at the last possible minute.
The most important aspect to this bill and the reason why it is so
important that we pass it today is, if we don't get something done this
week, we have to wait for the next Congress. The next Congress starts
in January. From there, we have got to wait a few more weeks before a
bill gets introduced, passed, and goes through the process again, and
we start all over.
In that time, we will miss out on all the rain that could possibly--
we are in a drought, but we did have some rain last week. We could have
some more rain in the next 2 weeks, maybe a month, and that is an
opportunity that we will be wasting if we don't take care of this
legislation today and get this passed.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from
northern California (Mr. George Miller).
May I add that I am very thankful for his many years of service to
this House and to the Nation, especially the State of California on
water issues.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for her remarks, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
[[Page H8832]]
Mr. Speaker, once again, we find ourselves in a situation where a
group of people in the Central Valley--a small number of farmers in the
Central Valley--have decided that if they can't have it their way, they
are just going to roll over the process.
Now, we are confronted with a piece of legislation that was, in fact,
much of it was withdrawn by the Senator from California because it
became apparent to all of the interests in the State that there were no
public hearings, there was no public participation, and it was a very
narrow group of people sitting in the back room in the Capitol of the
United States drafting legislation, where essentially everybody except
the people in that room take a hit. The people in the room get a
benefit.
How do they get the benefit? Because they extract more water than you
can currently extract and still keep the State whole. They extract more
water from a vibrant, commercial fishing industry. That is why the
Senators in Oregon and the Pacific Fisheries Association are against
this legislation.
This is a fishing industry that is worth hundreds of millions of
dollars, and they are at risk if you operate under this legislation
because this legislation overrides what the State agencies, what the
Governor, what the Federal agencies, and what the Secretary of the
Interior did this last time.
Mr. Speaker, when we got two surprise storms in March of this year,
we went back to the drawing table, and we figured out how we could get
more water out of this system to help these farmers in the Central
Valley. That was a good faith effort. That was done within the law.
Now, what they want to do is eviscerate that law, take away those
safeguards, and say, ``We are going to take additional water out this
system.'' When they take that additional water out of the system, they
take that additional water out of the water quality of hundreds of
thousands of people who drink the water from the delta and rely on a
fresh water supply.
We are quite aware of what happens in these dry years, and if you
keep turning the pumps on, those people are going to start sucking--
those water districts are going to start taking saltwater out of the
delta. They take it at the expense of the delta farmers who pump water
in the delta. That water will become saltier and saltier, and they will
not be able to plant their crops. They have limited time to plant their
crops, as it is, under these droughts.
Everybody in this State is paying a price for this drought, but now,
in the eleventh hour of this Congress, this group of farmers, these
very powerful, small people--these very powerful, small people--have
decided they are going to do it this way. We have seen this before.
We have worked year after year to get agreement, and when they can't
get their way, they go off to a private meeting, they draft
legislation, and that collapses all those talks, and then we start over
again. This is about the third or fourth time we have been here because
it is their way or the highway, and they absolutely expect that they
can take water.
These are people who have a contract right. They have a contract
right that is variable because they have the lowest water rights in the
State, and so what they are trying to do is to say they get to get in
line in front of everybody else in the State in exercising their water
rights.
The fact of the matter is we understand exactly what this is going to
do. That is why The Sacramento Bee, the Central Valley newspaper, the
Fresno Central Valley newspaper said that this bill deserves to die.
This bill deserves to die.
Mr. Speaker, I want to praise Senator Boxer for alerting the
Members--they talked about working across the aisle. They worked across
the aisle, but not with members of the House delegation who represent
this impacted area who stand to lose these jobs and who stand to lose
millions of dollars of economic activity.
I am not suggesting things are right for the people in the Central
Valley or right for people in the State. Our whole State is suffering
from a drought, but now, this is an eleventh hour attempt to say that
we don't like the way you are coming together to do this, and we are
going to take ours first.
This is contrary to what the State legislature did on a bipartisan
basis and with the participation of legislatures from the Central
Valley, from Southern California, from the Imperial Valley, and from
north California.
This is contrary to what the State and Federal agencies did to try
and work out and to get additional water, as we did in March. This is
contrary. This is contrary to what the State legislature said about
these being coequal values.
You have to protect the northern delta region, the origins of this
water, and you have to try to have sustainable water deliveries to
southern California. The legislature, again, on a bipartisan basis
agreed to that.
Then, on the bond issue, overwhelmingly, State legislatures voted to
put a bond on to try to deal with the drought, a rather remarkable
issue, with the support of the Governor. Legislatures from southern
California, from the Central Valley, and from north California voted to
put it on the ballot.
The public across the State--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents
from every region of the State--voted overwhelmingly to support the
bond issue, and now, in the eleventh hour, this small group of people
think that they can come and turn those expressions of State
legislative intent, of State law, of Federal law, and of State
environmental quality laws.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5
minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this
happen. The suggestion is that, somehow, there is free water floating
around out in that system and somebody is denying it. All of the water
in this current system, especially in this drought, is for purposes to
try to maintain a great Pacific coast salmon run that is tens and tens
and tens--hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity from the
mouth of San Francisco Bay almost to Santa Barbara and from the mouth
of San Francisco Bay almost to the Washington-Oregon border.
This impacts across State lines and the economy that that generates,
the economy that that generates in the hospitality industry and the
tourism industry, and the economy that generates in the delta. Yes,
there have been cutbacks. There have been cutbacks. We have all had
cutbacks, all of us; but now, you just don't get to go take your
neighbor's water. You don't get to go do that.
We will try and try again, and with these storms, I assume there is
going to be a renewal of the effort that was successful. It was
successful for the Central Valley, it was successful for the biological
opinions, and it was successful for the delta farmer; yet we moved a
little additional water that we hadn't anticipated.
Now, with these storms, hopefully, we will be able to do the same
things, but to write into the law that all of that water must always be
moved as long as this law is in place is absolutely contrary to the
interests of the rest of the State of California, whether they are in
northern California or whether they are in the Central Valley or
whether they are in southern California.
That is how we try to move this policy forward. It is a much better
policy today than it has been in the past, but we have got to have this
open hearing. We have got to discuss this among all of the members of
the California delegation, among all of those who represent the
taxpayers of this Nation.
The idea that you can just go into a room in the eleventh hour
because you know the session is ending, and you are going to say, ``we
have greater merit than anybody else, we are going to change this
law,'' that is not the democratic process.
That is not the proper representation of the people we represent in
the State of California, and it is absolutely contrary to what the
State government has done and accomplished, what they have done and
accomplished together with the Federal agencies, to try and make this
work recognizing the incredible hardship that every region in our State
is under.
The State is investing billions of dollars, and the private sector is
investing billions of dollars to try to make us water efficient, to try
to capture more
[[Page H8833]]
water and anticipate the building of dams.
All of these things are being done, but the idea that you can just
come in and say: Well, you know what, we are tired with the process, we
are impatient, even though we just voted for the bond issue, we are
going to take our water now, and you do the best you can.
{time} 1430
They are saying: You do the best you can. You do the best you can if
that is your drinking water in towns across Alameda County. You do the
best you can if that is the water you farm with. You just do the best
you can. If it is too salty and raises health concerns and you can't
grow your crops, that is tough because we are coming in line first. We
are going to step in front of everyone else.
What you are going to ignite here with the passage of this bill, you
are going to take us all back in time. As Senator Boxer pointed out,
this reignites the California water wars, something that we tried to
move away from, and we have made progress. I appreciate that those who
are impatient and who think that they are given a greater right than in
fact they are to water, that they believe now that they can just take
it from their neighbor--just take it from their neighbor--that is an
unacceptable process.
That is why Senator Feinstein withdrew from these negotiations, said
she would come back next year and go through regular order and have the
hearings that the people of California are entitled to so they know
what is going on. And those of us who represent very disparate parts of
the State will be able to participate and have hearings and understand
how California together cannot only solve the current problem in terms
of impacts, but also prepare the State for what most people tell us
will be a series of droughts by changing the manner in which we manage
water.
Everybody has to put into that pot, but this is somebody just
reaching into the pot and saying: I am taking mine first and you all do
whatever you want because we have changed the laws of the State, we
have changed the laws of this Nation, we have overwritten the
biological opinions from the courts, and we have overwritten the basic
environmental laws of the State and the Nation. So we are going to get
ours first, and then you do the best you can after that.
Those ramifications ripple across billions of dollars in our economy,
just as this drought has rippled across billions of dollars in our
economy because of the hardships in agriculture and the shortening of
seasons in fishing.
I urge my colleagues not to support this legislation and demand that
we have an open process and that we do not cave in to the same group of
people who have been trying to do this for 50 years.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of
the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, California's regulatory drought was
causing enormous economic damage and human hardship long before the
historic natural drought that has now stricken the State. And through
all of those years, the House has passed legislation repeatedly to
address it.
Finally, after years of inaction, the Senate produced a modest
measure to provide very limited flexibility for water managers to deal
with it. This bill largely reflects those provisions. It is a
temporary, stopgap measure that suspends no environmental laws and no
regulations. It simply tasks Federal water managers to conserve our
water for beneficial human use to the maximum extent possible once all
State and Federal environmental and water rights laws have been
fulfilled. Let me repeat: the bill explicitly requires all
environmental laws and regulations to be adhered to. All the House
added to the Senate bill are provisions to strengthen water rights for
areas of origin by adding Federal protection over these rights.
During the worst drought in California's history, we continue to
release billions of gallons of water from our dams just to adjust river
temperatures for the fish. Sadly, this bill doesn't even affect this
wasteful practice. But during the next year and a half, it does give
limited flexibility to water managers within these laws. That is
important because we are getting some rainfall this season, and once
all of the environmental laws have been fulfilled, we desperately need
to store what surplus remains for what could be another very dry year.
To take that surplus above and beyond what is needed to meet all of
our environmental mandates and dump it into the Pacific Ocean, as my
colleagues on the left suggest we should do, is nothing short of
lunacy. The fact that this very modest bill has evoked such apoplexy
from the left is a measure of just how extreme and out of touch they
have become. I wish this bill did much more, but it is a start.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the
opportunity to speak on H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought
Relief Act.
Mr. Speaker, we have been here before, and we will be here again
until Congress acts to provide authority for increased operational
flexibility for California's water projects. The American Geophysical
Union released a report last week that indicates, according to some of
the measures they are taking, that the 2012-2014 drought affecting
California is the worst in 1,200 years. The 2014 drought is responsible
for part of the greatest absolute reduction to water availability to
agriculture that we have ever seen. But we can operate the projects
differently for different outcomes.
The water modeling experts in the area I represent have indicated to
me that without additional authority to move water, unless California
receives 150 percent of its normal average rainfall this year, which is
unlikely, the water allocation on both the east side and the west side
of the San Joaquin Valley will be zero. Last year it was zero, and next
year it will be zero.
But urban users in the bay area and southern California, they will
get water. The fish, they will get water. But the folks on the east and
west side of the San Joaquin Valley will get a zero water allocation
unless we exceed 150 percent of normal. I would like the House to think
about that. We are talking about 2 years without surface water that
forms the basis of the economy of the region. The results are an
immediate impact to farmworkers and their families, to farmers, and to
the farm communities. This isn't some esoteric discussion about
precedent; this is about people's lives and their livelihoods that are
at stake.
Economists at UC Davis estimated that in 2013 the California economy
lost $2.2 billion in economic output as a result of this drought. For
my friends whose primary concern is environmental protection, the loss
of surface water supplies for the valley means that farmers are forced
to turn to groundwater, and they are overdrafting that groundwater in
substantial manner.
This is a crisis. The situation this year has been devastating, and
if we do nothing, next year it will become catastrophic.
H.R. 5781 is not perfect nor is it a bill that will solve all of
California's problems. We need to fix a broken water system. However,
it is a bill that provides, for 18 months, the flexibility for the
movement of water which is now not being moved. And it does so
responsibly by preserving the Secretary's discretion to reduce pumping
to prevent additional harm to endangered species. It will only take
advantage when we have storms. It does not change the biological
opinions, and it does nothing to move water rights in front of someone
else, as the previous speaker said. It has a sunset on it.
There will be debate about others ways to assist in drought recovery,
but this is the measure we have before us now.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will help the
San Joaquin Valley. It will help all of California to get by during the
devastating effects this drought is having. It is not a panacea. And
yes, we need to work together, but as far as igniting water wars, gee,
I don't think they have ever subsided. There are still historic
differences.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page H8834]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
The fault lines on water in California everybody on this floor knows.
They are deep and they are historic and they have existed for decades.
It is because we have this broken water system. We have a water system
designed for 20 million people. We now have 38 million people.
To provide water for the people, for the environment, and to maintain
agriculture, of which we are the largest agricultural State, we need to
work. We need to work together.
There were some comments about the secret meetings. Gee, if this has
been a secret as we have been working together for 8 months now, it is
one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington this year, I think. The
fact is this provides us a modicum of relief. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation, but we need to do much more.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his service to this House and this country. You will be greatly missed.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank those who have worked so diligently
on this bill, like Congressman David Valadao. He understands the need.
And we are not here today because we haven't thought that we might have
this problem. I have stood in this well before with Congressman Devin
Nunes, looking ahead, trying to be prepared so we can have water
throughout California, looking prepared that government, creating a
drought when we still have rain and snowpack.
Do you realize 4 years ago we had 170 percent of snowpack, but only
80 percent of the water was allocated to come down through the valley?
The valley not just feeds California, not just feeds the Nation, but
feeds the world.
When the valley does not get water, the price of food goes up to all.
But you know what is even more important? Those that go out of work. I
have watched many elected officials come to this well and talk about
unemployment. They say unemployment is below 6 percent. Let me tell you
what unemployment is throughout the valley today. There are some cities
that have more than 30 percent unemployment. The number one factor--
water. So what does the world look like today even though not just this
Congress but the Congress before it moved legislation to deal with this
issue. We are now at a 1,200-year drought. That is much longer than the
entire life of this Nation.
So if we are at this time, why do we bring this bill before us? I
think we should have honesty in this bill. This is not the bill I would
write. This is not the bill I would bring forward. This is a bipartisan
bill where people on both sides of the aisle sat down. We said we need
a temporary bill that lives within these means.
So do we change endangered species? No, we do not. What does this
bill do? It says, in the rainy season when the flood waters are high,
can we not move water down through the valley. That is what this bill
does. It also has a safeguard that, if the fish are harmed, to stop.
Does this bill go on forever? No. It goes the length of September or
to the length of what the Governor has declared within the drought.
Now, I know government cannot make it rain, but government can stop
the government policies that pick fish over people. Government can
prepare ahead of time that, if we are going to have a rainy season
coming, we allow the water to have the best use of where it goes, that
it protects the fish while at the time allocates water to the valley so
everyone wins in the process. That is why it was bipartisan. That is
why we sat together. That is why it is temporary. That is why this bill
is brought before us today.
I would like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle that
worked for it. But what is unfortunate, some people will say things it
is not. The most important thing we should do in this House is make
sure fairness is provided. I think the greatest fairness that should be
provided is being prepared for when water comes. But what is even more
important is looking at the faces of the 30 percent unemployed, looking
at the faces throughout that valley and saying it does not have to be
that way. Government can make a difference if both sides would work
together as we did to craft this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Now, why would an Oregonian insert himself into the perpetual water
wars in California? Well, first off, this bill has had no hearings. As
you can see from the debate here on the floor, there is extraordinary
disagreement over the potential impacts of this legislation. That is
not just critical to Californians, it is critical to Oregonians.
I have a letter here from the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
They believe that this could have a hugely detrimental impact on some
audit species which compose about 80 percent of the California fishery
and about 50 percent of the fishery in Oregon.
We went through this before about a decade ago where there were
inadequate outflows. There were problems with the forge fish, the
smelt, and the returning salmon, and we had a season that was closed
for 2 years. It put many, many Oregonians out of work. There was impact
beyond commercial fisheries and coastal communities on recreational
fisheries. It cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. We got a couple
of hundred million dollars in Federal relief.
{time} 1445
The experts, the Pacific Fishery Management Council and their lawyers
who have read this bill, believe it does change the management of the
water in ways that are detrimental and would void the biological
opinion and would probably put us back into another couple of ``no
fishing'' years a few years down the road given the cycle of salmon,
particularly, section 103(d)(2) and section 103(c).
I have heard here on the floor, despite the fact no hearing has been
held--the bill just burbled up very recently--that on one side they are
saying, ``No, don't worry, it will not have a detrimental environmental
impact, and, if it does, well, we will stop doing it.''
But I just looked at that section of the bill and it doesn't quite
say that definitively. In fact, it changes the standards, and then it
says, ``If additional negative impacts might happen, then the Secretary
could suspend some of the provisions of this bill.'' Not exactly
certainty, and we need some certainty here for our fisheries.
We have been hurting for years. Last year, we had a good year,
thankfully. We are still dealing with buybacks because of reducing the
size of the fleets from past problems. Fishermen are burdened with the
buyback year in, year out. I just got the terms of that adjusted in the
NDAA. They had a payday loan from the Federal Government. Now we got
them a reasonable loan from the Federal Government. The government
didn't even pay for their buyback. Heck, in the Northeast, they paid
for a couple of buybacks. No, we had to pay for our own with a payday
loan. Now we are going to jeopardize the fleet 1, 2, or 3 years out
because we won't have the returns with the endangered species.
So this is a bad idea to do in the waning days of a Congress, to
bring forward a bill which is controversial, over which there is
disagreement on the actual language in the provisions of the bill, and
which my experts, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, say would be
detrimental and would cause those problems.
Pacific Fishery Management Council,
Portland, OR, December 6, 2014.
Hon. Jared Huffman,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Huffman: Thank you for your letter of November 17
and follow-up on December 3 requesting Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council) comment on
[[Page H8835]]
legislation related to operation of the State Water Project
and Central Valley Project in California (HR 5781) and its
potential impacts to fisheries. Although the timing of the
bill did not allow for full Council deliberation, we present
the following concerns, which are consistent with previous
comments the Council has made on similar legislation. Absent
changes in the legislation to address these concerns, the
Pacific Council does not support HR 5781 moving forward.
HR 5781 would override Endangered Species Act protections
for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the Bay-Delta in
order to allow increased pumping from the Delta in excess of
scientifically justified levels. These measures also protect
salmon stocks not currently listed under the ESA, which are a
primary source of healthy sport and commercial fisheries from
Central California to Northern Oregon. The bill introduces a
new standard for implementing the Endangered Species Act
concerning Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt, a keystone
species in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. (See Sec 101(3), and
102(b)(2)(a).) It is unclear how severe the negative effects
of this new standard might be, but it would certainly impact
current water management policy that protects ESA listed
salmon stocks from further decline and helps prevent
currently healthy stocks from becoming listed under the ESA.
The bill contains several provisions that override the
salmon and Delta smelt biological opinions (for example
Section 103(d)(2), Section 103(c), and others). Section 103
could result in dramatically higher pumping than is
authorized under the biological opinions, and would cause
significant harm to migrating salmon and steelhead and other
native species. The 1:1 inflow to export ratio for the San
Joaquin at Vernalis overrides the `reasonable and prudent
alternatives' to standard operations that were set out in the
2009 Central Valley biological opinion in order to protect
Sacramento River winter-run Chinook and other salmonid
species. Further degradation of salmon habitat is contrary to
the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act (Sec.
305(b)(1)(D)) and something the Pacific Council strongly
opposes.
Section 103(f)(2) provides exemptions for mitigation of
negative effects on listed fish species, which alleviates the
project from compensating fisheries for negative effects of
its operations; it is unclear if there is an exemption for
mitigation of negative effect on non-listed salmon stocks.
Exempting mitigation responsibility for harm to salmon
populations provides the exact opposite incentive to the kind
of salmon protection and enhancement advocated by the
Council, and essentially amounts to redistributing the value
of salmon fisheries to agricultural or municipal interests,
as well as increasing the risk to ESA listed fish stocks
threatened with extinction. Additionally, the Pacific Council
is concerned about whether Central Valley projects are
achieving their current mitigation responsibility, and
providing these exemptions could preclude seeking remedy. If
this bill moves forward, it should provide direct mitigation
for the proposed actions and risks to which it would subject
fish populations and fishing communities, not avoiding this
appropriate responsibility.
In 2008 and 2009. $158 million in Congressional aid was
provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean
salmon fisheries off California and Oregon south of Cape
Falcon due to a collapse of the Sacramento River salmon
stocks. These fisheries are an important source of jobs for
coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through
disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear
such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near
future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this
legislation; please don't hesitate to contact me or Ms.
Jennifer Gilden of the Pacific Council office if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
D.O. McIsaac, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), author of the
original, long-term bill that passed in the last Congress.
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, listening to the rhetoric that is coming from
the other side, I am reminded of the old saying about the Soviet Union:
if you tell a lie long enough, eventually people will believe you.
There is hardly anything coming from the other side of the aisle that
is even remotely close to the truth. I don't have enough time to go
through it all, but let me just hit the high points.
Number one, let's start with the facts on the table. Most of the
population in California lives in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area or
Los Angeles, which mostly Democrats represent, and which is the home of
the 1 percent in California. The poor people that they continue to make
more poor are my constituents because they have taken their water and
dumped our water out into the ocean.
Let's take the example of San Francisco in the Greater Bay Area. They
get their water not only from the delta, but also the United States
Congress passed legislation in the early part of last century that
allows water to be piped over from Yosemite National Park directly over
to the Bay Area.
This is our water. This water should be going to the San Joaquin
Valley. They have given up none of that. You have a Member who has been
here for 40-some years who made the claim that some people are reaching
in and taking their water. Well, no, it is the opposite. Once again, if
you tell a lie long enough, I guess you think eventually people will
agree with you or believe you.
This is about San Francisco and Los Angeles getting all of their
water, never giving up one drop, and they have taken the water from our
communities. As the majority leader said, we have communities that
continue to suffer 20, 30, or 40 percent unemployment while the 1
percent on the coast say nothing, do nothing. They complain about it.
They give big subsidies to their salmon fishery buddies and the
environmental community. We have other people on the other side of the
aisle who made their whole careers making millions of dollars off of
lawsuits, bringing lawsuits against the farms, that remain undisclosed
in the dark today.
So, Mr. Speaker, we need to get the truth out on the table here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman.
Mr. NUNES. So what we are doing here now is, we have been working
diligently with Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, but you have one
of the Senators decide that she didn't want to come up with a solution.
We got the bill from being permanent down to just an 18-month temporary
bill. We have floodwaters today that are not being pumped that
historically were pumped. We have communities that are completely out
of water, 100 percent out of water, yet the 1 percent, they don't care.
I have heard a lot about the 1 percent around this place. The
rhetoric from the other side, that rhetoric represents the 1 percent.
We represent the people that are unemployed because of their 1 percent
policies.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can get back to the truth. If we can
get this bill passed, it gives the Senate an opportunity to amend the
bill, send it back in the waning days of this Congress. If they cannot,
then we have to start back in January with new legislation.
But, in the meantime, people are out of work, cities are out of
water, towns are out of water, rural homes are out of water, schools
are out of water, churches are out of water, because the folks on the
other side of the aisle spent 40 years taking water away and keeping it
for themselves.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the impassioned speech,
but it is not our water. It is California water.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the
ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
This is always a difficult issue. It is a California issue, and I
want to point out that the California delegation is not evenly split on
this. It is unevenly split. The reason is the gentleman just talked
about what he called ``facts.'' His points of what he was making are
not true.
As the ranking member indicated, the chair, she indicated that this
is public water, public water that is transported in the State by
publicly financed canals, both by the Federal Government and by the
State government. This is water that is supposed to balance for all
California. It is all publicly owned and distributed, mostly to the
private sector in the San Joaquin Valley.
Now, we have a drought. Everybody knows it. It is a disaster. The
President declared it that. What we ought to be doing in Congress is
paying for that disaster, like we pay for every other disaster. This
bill doesn't do it. I was a coauthor of the original bill, but I am not
cosponsoring this one, and I am not supporting this one because what
this does is not deal with the problem of getting money to California
to build the infrastructure that we need for off-stream storage and
things like that.
[[Page H8836]]
What it does is disrupt a balanced system that has flexibility. We
have been through the worst drought, and there have been flexible
releases given this year. We solved it administratively. But to put it
in law I think is very harmful. It is going to cause more lawsuits,
more dissension, and we are back to, as Senator Boxer indicated, square
one and not being able to find resolution.
Now, you argue that, well, we are the leading ag State. I am the
leading ag county: $4.8 billion worth of agriculture. We don't get a
drop of this water. We find our own water in our own county. Frankly,
we are reducing the amount of use in agriculture tremendously by drip
irrigation and other forms of agricultural use.
So I think that the danger here is in the last minute of this
Congress we are taking a bill that is extremely controversial and
trying to pass it in the last minutes when we really need to resolve
this thing so it is a balance for all of California, not just a few.
I think this is very harmful for our State, and I hope that those who
are not from California will oppose the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hastings,
and a special thanks to my friend and colleague Mr. Valadao for
introducing this legislation.
Why is somebody from Illinois standing on the floor of the House to
talk about a bill that affects California? Well, this chart says it
all: California crops, 99 percent of the almonds, 99 percent of the
figs. Go down this chart and you can see how it impacts every single
family that I represent in central Illinois. 800,000 people in my
congressional district go buy these products in our stores. The cost of
not doing something to affect this historic drought is costing them and
their families more to eat these products, healthy products, that come
from the Central Valley of California.
When you have over 800,000 acre-feet of water being released, fresh
water being released into the ocean, that is enough water for 800,000
families to use for a year. We are simply asking for flexibility that
has a direct impact on every single family in this country. It has an
impact on my families that I represent, and that is why I am so proud
to stand here and support this legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time
that is remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 8
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 13\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Some of our colleagues from other States may be experiencing a sense
of deja vu right now. Yes, this is the second time this year that the
House has voted on a California water bill that would harm northern
California fisheries, tribes, and communities; that would undermine
State law; that would deprive water managers of the flexibility they
need; and it would micromanage the complex water system of California.
To make sure we are all dealing with the same facts, I want to remind
my colleagues that the State and Federal water export pumps in the
delta right now are operating at more than 5,000 cubic feet per second.
The only reason they are not pumping even faster is not to protect
fish and wildlife, not because of the Endangered Species Act, none of
the other bogeymen that we hear as a justification for this bill. No,
the reason those pumps are not going even faster is because of
standards set by the State of California to protect water quality from
municipal and industrial and agricultural and other uses in the system.
So the only way that this bill could deliver more water today--well,
there is no way it could deliver more water today--and the only way it
could deliver more water in other times of the year is by taking it
away from other water users and other beneficial uses in our State.
With that inconvenient fact out of the way, let's talk about the
process that brought us here today. H.R. 5781 has never been reviewed
by the authorizing committee, let alone marked up in open session. Nor
have we received the input of State or Federal agencies that have the
responsibility over clean water and fisheries management. Nor have we
received the input of affected local water agencies, of commercial and
recreational fishing interests, of tribes--including ones that I
represent--or other communities that will surely be impacted negatively
if this were to become law.
The proponents of this bill say that it is the result of bipartisan
collaboration. Really? Those of us who represent northern California's
fishing industries, tribes, farmers, and communities have been
systematically kept out of the room and even kept out of the
conversation.
Last month, we learned that members of our State's Republican
delegation refused to even brief Senator Barbara Boxer if northern
California Democrats like me were even in the room.
This is no way to negotiate something this important. It is a
terrible precedent for other States as well, and that is why I am glad
that Senator Boxer has been so clear in stating her opposition to it,
that it would ignite water wars in California, not solve problems, and
I am glad that over the weekend we received a veto recommendation from
the Obama administration.
Now, on Saturday, the Pacific Fishery Management Council sent me a
letter about the bill. I asked them how they felt it would affect
western fisheries in this country. Here is what they said:
H.R. 5781 would override Endangered Species Act protections
for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the Bay Delta in
order to allow increased pumping from the delta in excess of
scientifically justified levels.
In 2008 and 2009, $158 million in congressional aid was
provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean
salmon fisheries off California and Oregon south of Cape
Falcon due to a collapse of the Sacramento River salmon
stocks. These fisheries are an important source of jobs for
coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through
disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear
such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near
future.
Mr. Speaker, I will include this letter in the Record at this time.
Pacific Fishery
Management Council,
Portland, OR, December 6, 2014.
Hon. Jared Huffman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Huffman: Thank you for your letter of November 17
and follow-up on December 3 requesting Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council) comment on legislation
related to operation of the State Water Project and Central
Valley Project in California (HR 5781) and its potential
impacts to fisheries. Although the timing of the bill did not
allow for full Council deliberation, we present the following
concerns, which are consistent with previous comments the
Council has made on similar legislation. Absent changes in
the legislation to address these concerns, the Pacific
Council does not support HR 5781 moving forward.
HR 5781 would override Endangered Species Act protections
for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the Bay-Delta in
order to allow increased pumping from the Delta in excess of
scientifically justified levels. These measures also protect
salmon stocks not currently listed under the ESA, which are a
primary source of healthy sport and commercial fisheries from
Central California to Northern Oregon. The bill introduces a
new standard for implementing the Endangered Species Act
concerning Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt, a keystone
species in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. (See Sec 101(3), and
102(b)(2)(a).) It is unclear how severe the negative effects
of this new standard might be, but it would certainly impact
current water management policy that protects ESA listed
salmon stocks from further decline and helps prevent
currently healthy stocks from becoming listed under the ESA.
The bill contains several provisions that override the
salmon and Delta smelt biological opinions (for example
Section 103(d)(2), Section 103(c), and others). Section 103
could result in dramatically higher pumping than is
authorized under the biological opinions, and would cause
significant harm to migrating salmon and steelhead and other
native species. The 1:1 inflow to export ratio for the San
Joaquin at Vernalis overrides the `reasonable and prudent
alternatives' to standard operations that were set out in the
2009 Central Valley biological opinion in order to protect
Sacramento River winter-run Chinook and other salmonid
species. Further degradation of salmon habitat is contrary to
the provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act
[[Page H8837]]
(Sec. 305(b)(1)(D)) and something the Pacific Council
strongly opposes.
Section 103(f)(2) provides exemptions for mitigation of
negative effects on listed fish species, which alleviates the
project from compensating fisheries for negative effects of
its operations; it is unclear if there is an exemption for
mitigation of negative effect on non-listed salmon stocks.
Exempting mitigation responsibility for harm to salmon
populations provides the exact opposite incentive to the kind
of salmon protection and enhancement advocated by the
Council, and essentially amounts to redistributing the value
of salmon fisheries to agricultural or municipal interests,
as well as increasing the risk to ESA listed fish stocks
threatened with extinction. Additionally, the Pacific Council
is concerned about whether Central Valley projects are
achieving their current mitigation responsibility, and
providing these exemptions could preclude seeking remedy. If
this bill moves forward, it should provide direct mitigation
for the proposed actions and risks to which it would subject
fish populations and fishing communities, not avoiding this
appropriate responsibility.
In 2008 and 2009 $158 million in Congressional aid was
provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean
salmon fisheries off California and Oregon south of Cape
Falcon due to a collapse of the Sacramento River salmon
stocks. These fisheries are an important source of jobs for
coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through
disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear
such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near
future.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this
legislation; please don't hesitate to contact me or Ms.
Jennifer Gilden of the Pacific Council office if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
D.O. McIsaac, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
Mr. HUFFMAN. In addition, California's recreational and commercial
fishing interests sent a letter on Friday with their concerns that this
legislation would ``harm, potentially disastrously, the communities,
families, and thousands of fishing jobs in California and Oregon that
depend on the health of the Bay Delta and its salmon runs.''
Mr. Speaker, I will include their letter in the Record at this time
as well.
Opposition to H.R. 5781
December 5, 2014.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 5781
(Valadao, R-CA), a bill that would dramatically weaken
protections for salmon and other fish and wildlife in
California's Bay-Delta estuary and its tributaries. This
legislation would harm, potentially disastrously, the
communities, families and thousands of fishing jobs in
California and Oregon that depend on the health of the Bay-
Delta and its salmon runs.
H.R. 5781 would undermine existing legal protections for
salmon, endangered species, and other species in the Bay-
Delta ecosystem, in order to pump more water out of the most
important salmon producing system south of the Columbia
River. For example, the bill would rewrite and override
protections required under the Endangered Species Act and
replace the best available science with political micro-
management. Those ESA protections also benefit fall run
Chinook salmon, the backbone of the salmon fishery. This
legislation would also undermine existing federal law, which
establishes fish and wildlife protection and salmon
restoration as a co-equal goal of the Central Valley Project.
It would attempt to redirect water dedicated by law to
restoring fisheries and ecosystem heath. By requiring a
massive new groundwater development project, this legislation
has the potential to divert tens of millions of dollars away
from ecosystem restoration, including salmon restoration
projects. Such groundwater development would likely also
reduce surface waters needed by salmon.
This damaging legislation has never been subject to a
single committee hearing or input from the State, hunting
organizations, sport and commercial fishermen, tribes, and
conservation groups. Frankly put, this last-minute
legislation is a cynical water grab. It doesn't address the
cause of the drought, nor does it offer solutions. Instead,
it is simply an effort to legislate the destruction of the
environment and the salmon industry.
The very real water shortages experienced in parts of
California this year are a result of three dry years, not
environmental protections. Real solutions to the impacts of
the drought include agricultural and urban water use
efficiency, water recycling and other tools that can meet our
needs and that don't sacrifice our environment and fisheries.
This legislation addresses none of those solutions.
This legislation could not come at a more damaging time.
2015 represents the first year that drought affected salmon
year classes will return as spawning adults. We anticipate a
significant, perhaps dramatic, reduction in returning salmon
during 2015-2017. The coming three years will be a critical
time for the salmon industry. This is not a theoretical
concern. In 2008-2009, three years after record diversions
from the Bay-Delta, low salmon populations led to the
complete closure of the salmon fishery. This legislation
could help lead to a repeat of that disastrous closure. The
standards protecting salmon today are too low already.
Further rollbacks could have a devastating impact on salmon
runs that have already been harmed by drought.
Our salmon industry is valued at $1.4 billion in economic
activity annually. The industry employs tens of thousands of
people from Santa Barbara to northern Oregon, including in
California's Central Valley. This industry consists of
commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, fish
processors, marinas, coastal communities, equipment
manufacturers, tackle shops, the hotel and food industry,
tribes, and the salmon fishing industry at large. All of
these economic sectors and individuals could be harmed by
damaging federal legislation. We all respectfully request
your leadership to protect our future.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose H.R.
5781 and any other last-minute attempts to undercut the
existing balance of rights and protections among the users of
the California Bay-Delta watershed. California's drought
requires real solutions, not a return to the imbalanced
policies of the 1940s and 1950s.
Thank you for your consideration.
John McManus,
Golden Gate Salmon Association.
Zeke Grader,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
Dick Pool,
Water4Fish.
Roger Thomas,
Golden Gate Fishermen's Association.
Mark Gorelnick,
Coastside Fishing Club.
Larry Collins,
San Francisco Crab Boat Association.
{time} 1500
At the Rules Committee debate, I raised a series of important
technical questions about flaws in this bill. Unfortunately, the House
majority has decided that it cannot be amended through an open rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. HUFFMAN. If we did have the benefit of a hearing or even just an
opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to address
some of these, but so far, nobody has answered some of these key
technical questions.
First, does the bill allow the State water board, basically, to do
its job if we head into a fourth year of a critical drought, doing
things like issuing curtailment orders and possibly rationing orders?
These are tough calls that our State's water referee has to make. This
bill does not appear to allow them the flexibility to do that.
Does the bill, which directs the Federal Government to ``provide the
maximum quantity of water supplies possible'' next year, allow the
Federal Government to do other things necessary to operate the system,
like filling reservoirs, holding water for public health purposes, or--
when it might be needed--even for other water contractors?
Does the bill put additional pressure on the Trinity River, which I
represent, and the tribes that have depended on it for their traditions
and their subsistence on healthy salmon populations for millennia?
There are many other questions that are unanswered about this bill.
It is not ready for prime time, it is not good policy, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me in this
committee on this important topic.
Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in northern California, and when I hear
talk of the water wars being reignited, it has been a one-sided war,
with the amount of farmers and people that work in the Valley. They
haven't had the bullets to be in a water war because we have been
losing for a long time.
Hundreds of thousands of acre-feet that have been diverted already in
the past adds up to millions over the years for other uses, besides
what has been going in the North Valley, South Valley, and Central
Valley.
I heard this comment a while ago. Powerful, small people were how
legislators looked at us in the valley--powerful, small people. Do
these folks
[[Page H8838]]
standing in the unemployment line look powerful to you? Do the farmers
who have been fighting against this for years and years look powerful
when we keep losing these battles one after another? To build more
storage, we would have water for everybody in California.
This measure here today would help everybody in California that is
part of State water projects or the Central Valley Project. Twenty
million people in California would see additional benefit by taking--
and here's the concept here, folks--excess water during high flows that
now would be just flowing out to the Pacific.
We are not taking water during the middle of the season any more than
what would already be in the established regime. This is the excess
water you would see during flood periods or the high flows that do
happen when we have rainfall and water thundering down the Sacramento
River, the Feather River, and San Joaquin River during those high
flows. We are taking that excess water and reprogramming it, so it can
benefit more people. It doesn't take anything from the fish regime or
any of that type of concern.
We hear the stuff coming from the other side of the aisle that has
continued, whether it has been for 40 years or just recently, to
distort what we are trying to do here to make more water for
California, which is in its third year of a huge drought--as Mr.
McCarthy said, what looks like a 1,200-year record for droughts--and
about stopping this temporary measure that would help to cause a little
bit of excess water be retained to help the people like this to have
jobs.
We hear we need jobs in California. We are talking about immigration
bills. Let's help people have jobs to live the dream. What about the
people that are already here? What about the people standing in that
line that have conditions that look like this, with the crops in our
State being left fallow, these trees and these vines being stumped or
completely pushed out because we can't have a vision, all because we
have the typical rhetoric, which I have been listening to as a farmer
when I was outside of this place and now today on this floor--and
probably many more times--that says we can't build any storage because
of this?
It is a new regime which respects the already-established protocols.
This doesn't take away the power from the State water board or the
other boards in place. If you would actually read the bill, you would
see in it those provisions are kept in place by the Governor and by the
water boards. All the entities that have authority over it can step in
and say, ``We think this is going to affect the fish, the water regime,
or any of the others.''
I urge that we support this measure today, and I ask that we listen
to what is in the bill and not listen to the rhetoric and the lies.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and I
read this information in the newspaper. Nobody ever contacted me. I had
no idea the formulation of this particular bill was going on.
When we talk about unemployment, it is nice to trot out pictures and
show what the effect is, but I see nothing in this bill that is going
to help the farm workers themselves, nothing that is going to provide
more wet water, create water, whether it is through recycling,
desalination, or conservation--all the things that southern California
has been doing.
Let's not forget that 80 percent of the water used is for agriculture
and 20 percent is for industrial, commercial, and residential; so there
is a little bit of a disparity there, my friends.
I really am looking at how we move towards working on a bipartisan
basis. We don't want to argue. We want to make resolutions by working
together, and that is not happening. Maybe it is something that I have
said--I am not sure, Mr. Speaker--but I am more than willing to sit
down between now and next year when we have this bill come to the light
of the day, if it is reintroduced, and we can have an honest discussion
about the effects it has.
Also, when we talk about California's 35 million residents, only 12
million reside in L.A. County, part of the county that I represent.
That is not including San Bernardino, Riverside, or San Diego, so we
talk about the boaters in southern California getting the shaft for not
getting the water and paying more for that water.
When we are looking at water distribution, I suggest that we sit and
actually work openly and transparently. We oppose this secretly written
Central Valley-focused legislation. We hope that we are going to
continue the dialogue because, yes, California, is a donor State. We
need to be able to continue providing that for the rest of the Nation,
so that we can have a better economy and a growth in our agricultural
area.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5781, the so-called
California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, which should be called
the CVP California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points here before I yield
back my time. This has been a very interesting debate. As I mentioned
in my opening remarks, I attended two hearings in Fresno, California,
particularly on this issue, and saw firsthand the impact of what the
natural drought and the manmade drought has done to the San Joaquin
Valley.
My friends on the other side of the aisle stated a number of
newspapers that editorialized against this. Mr. Speaker, I will insert
into the Record a Fresno Bee editorial of December 6 saying that the
Valadao bill, which is H.R. 5781, should be passed.
[From The Fresno Bee, Dec. 6, 2014]
Facts Support Passage of Drought Relief Legislation
One of the oldest rules in politics is, when the facts are
on your side, you cite the facts; when the facts aren't on
your side, you pound the table.
Over the last few days, opponents of The California
Emergency Drought Relief Act, which was introduced in the
House of Representatives on Tuesday, have been yelling about
water grabs, protesting the timing of the bill's introduction
and doing all they can to divert attention from the facts--
both pertaining to this legislation and to the cruel
realities of our state's prolonged drought.
So, let's start with the facts.
This drought is the worst that California has experienced
in at least 1,200 years. So says a study published by the
American Geophysical Union and cited by a Washington Post
blog Thursday. Not only have we received little rain, but the
lack of precipitation has been intensified by record-breaking
high temperatures. Moreover, the fertile agricultural fields
of the San Joaquin Valley are suffering through an
``exceptional drought,'' the most severe classification.
Yes, it has rained lately in California. Thank goodness it
has. But much more rain is needed to restore our aquifers,
fill our reservoirs reverse the economic hardship inflicted
on our state and, in particular, the Valley, by the drought.
The bill (H.R. 5781) introduced by Rep. David Valadao, R-
Hanford and supported by GOP leadership provides the
flexibility and resources to give farmers in the Valley and
elsewhere a fighting chance to grow their crops and put
people back to work in 2015. In a nutshell, the bill would
allow the Bureau of Reclamation the freedom to hold more
winter rain and snow and then distribute it to areas in need.
Not only would this flexibility help farmers and rural
communities, but it would benefit the environment as well.
This legislation is the product of months of talks and
negotiations earlier this year involving Republican and
Democrats in both the House and the U.S. Senate and is the
result of thoughtful compromise. The bill doesn't amend the
Endangered Species Act or existing biological opinions. It
leaves decision-making about habitat, protected species and
water quality to federal environmental agencies. But it would
reduce the flow of water through the Sacramento-Joaquin River
Delta to the Pacific Ocean and pump more water to the south--
as long as that pumping doesn't harm protected fish such as
delta smelt, salmon and steelhead.
Moreover, these changes would be temporary, as they would
end in September of 2016 or upon the governor ending
California's drought declaration.
Opponents are trying to paint this bill as detrimental to
the environment and the result of secret negotiations. Again,
let's examine the facts. In a phone interview with The
Editorial Board on Friday, Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, pointed
out that this proposal is similar to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's
bill that was passed under unanimous consent by the Senate in
February.
Passage of Feinstein's Emergency Drought Relief Act then
set the stage for negotiations--and compromise--with Valadao,
who
[[Page H8839]]
earlier had received partisan House approval of a bill that
was extreme and over the top. Early on, Northern California
Democrats, many of which are supported by environmentalist,
were involved in the negotiations. But they drew firm lines
in the sand and quit the talk.
Valadao's bill is reasonable and much needed. It deserves
the support of Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer and the
California delegation in the House of Representatives.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let me address another issue.
We heard a number of times from the speakers on the other side of the
aisle that there has been no hearing on this bill; it came out of the
blue, blah, blah, blah. We heard that over and over. Maybe it is
because when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the
majority, they didn't follow regular order, so let me say this as
slowly or plainly as I can.
In the last Congress, Congressman Nunes introduced a long-term bill
that we had a number of hearings on in the National Resources
Committee. We marked up the bill in the Resources Committee, and we had
it on the floor, where there were amendments that were offered to that
bill; and, finally, in the last Congress, it passed with bipartisan
support.
That was in the last Congress, Mr. Nunes' bill. In this Congress, Mr.
Valadao took that bill, dusted it off, and made two minor changes. We
brought it to the floor, and once again, it passed with bipartisan
support.
Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty good example of what regular order is,
and all we said, by the way, is, ``Okay. This is our position. This is
the House's position. If the Senate has a different position, pass a
bill.'' There was nothing complex about that, and to the credit of
Senator Feinstein, primarily, there was a bill that passed with
unanimous consent.
I might add, however, Mr. Speaker, that there were no hearings held
on the Senate bill in the Senate. There were no hearings held on the
Senate bill; however, because of the drought in California, many
Western senators--primarily, Republican Western senators--when asked,
presumably by Senator Feinstein, if this bill could go by unanimous
consent, they said, ``Yes, but there are some conditions that we ought
to look at before it finally becomes law.'' Their principal concern was
in the area of the Endangered Species Act.
Now, in the 20 years that I have been here, I have been a vocal
critic of how the Endangered Species Act has been implemented, and I
hope that we have made some movement in that with the passage of three
bills that we did later on.
My point is this, Mr. Speaker: the Senate then passed their bill. The
normal process under regular order is when the House has a position and
the Senate has a position, then you get together to negotiate the
differences.
Now, there are a lot of differences between those two bills, and for
the last 6 months, there has been a good faith effort to try to
negotiate the difference.
A week ago, Senator Feinstein said: We just can't get it done at this
point; and, at that point, my colleagues here in the House--Mr.
Valadao, principally, but the other colleagues that spoke--said: I
think what we ought to do is to put into bill form what we had
principally agreed to in this conference--although it wasn't a formal
conference, it was an informal conference--and put it in bill form.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what we have before us is legislation
that has been largely agreed to in this informal conference that has
been going on for some time with the California water issue.
This isn't something that came out of the dark. As a matter of fact,
in the 4 years that my colleagues controlled this House, there was no
California water legislation whatsoever. So to come up here and talk
and say there are other things and they should be involved, of course,
they should be involved. They were involved with the Senate action on
the Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is good legislation. It
represents a broad consensus that could be done in the informal
conference, so I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
Hopefully, the Senate can take it up before we adjourn. If we don't,
the consequences are that we are going to have to start all over again
in the next Congress.
There has been so much work that has been done in the informal
conference that to let that go and not have some positive action on it,
I think, would be wrong for us to do.
With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5781,
yet another California water-grab bill. If enacted, H.R. 5781 would
dictate specific actions for water management agencies' experts to take
while undermining state water rights and state environmental laws.
These directives would eliminate flexibility in the system by making it
more difficult for state and federal agencies to make real-time,
science-based decisions to address the drought.
In addition to my colleagues speaking out against the bill today, the
Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the bill
which states:
H.R. 5781 makes operational determinations regarding the
use of limited water resources during the ongoing drought,
and contains many new provisions that could lead to
unintended consequences or further litigation, the
Administration cannot support the bill in its current form.
Further, the Administration highlighted its ongoing work to address
the drought:
The United States Department of Agriculture has directed
millions of dollars in food, conservation, and emergency
water assistance to tens of thousands of residents in areas
hardest hit by drought. The Bureau of Reclamation has
provided cost-share assistance for nine water reclamation and
reuse projects in the State as well as millions of dollars in
grants to build long-term resiliency to drought. . . . The
President has directed Federal agencies to work with state
and local officials in real-time to maximize limited water
supplies, prioritize public health and safety, meet state
water quality requirements, and ensure a balanced approach to
providing for the water needs of people, agriculture,
businesses, power, imperiled species and the environment.
Instead of legislating how the current dwindling supply of water
should be moved within the state, we should follow the Administration's
lead and fund conservation, recycling, and storage projects to create
new water.
Additionally, over 30 environmental, natural resource, and fishing
groups sent letters of opposition to H.R. 5781 to Congress. Fishing
industry groups oppose the bill because:
The bill would undermine existing legal protections for
salmon, endangered species, and other species in the Bay-
Delta ecosystem, in order to pump more water out of the most
important salmon producing system south of the Columbia
River. For example, the bill would rewrite and override
protections required under the Endangered Species Act and
replace the best available science with political micro-
management.''
Authors of H.R. 5781 believe it will boost the economy in part of
California, but in this haphazard attempt at amelioration, they risk
eliminating jobs in the $1.4 billion salmon industry by, jobs in the
Delta tourism industry, and jobs in Northern California agriculture.
Natural resource and bird organizations oppose the bill because of
the devastating impact it could have on migratory birds and other fish
and wildlife in the Bay-Delta estuary. According to these groups:
California has already lost more than 90 percent of its
existing wetlands and in the current drought conditions,
migratory birds are crowding onto the small remaining habitat
areas, suffering from decreased food and increased risk of
disease.
With at least a billion birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway each
year, we cannot afford to eliminate even more habitat. We must ensure
water supplies are properly balanced for all needs and mandating
exports to water users south of the Delta will not achieve this
balance.
In addition to being deeply flawed, this bill is being rammed through
at the last minute. Introduced just last week, this bill is
circumventing all regular order and will be voted on despite having no
hearings and no mark-ups. As the Sacramento Bee states, ``The new bill
deserves a full public hearing so that we know its full implications
for California.''
As I have stated before, this drought is caused by nature--something
so painfully obvious, it can be seen from space. Circumventing science
and legislating how to operate a water system is irresponsible and we
must find ways to add to our water supply instead of taking water from
one group and giving to another for political gain. For these reasons,
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to H.R. 5781, a bill that was written in secret, would destroy jobs,
ignores established science, and does nothing to address the drought.
Unfortunately, I am unable to participate in this debate today due to
the House Majority's last minute scheduling. Not only were we not given
time for Congressional hearings or public input on this legislation, we
were not even
[[Page H8840]]
given enough time to plan to be here to debate the bill after it was
rushed to the floor. I was home working in district when this debate
was scheduled and by the time I received notice of the floor debate, no
flights were available other than the one I was originally on.
Ten months ago this House considered and passed a similarly horrible
bill. Neither bill will solve the drought because neither bill can make
it rain.
Instead of spending the last ten months working across the aisle with
all stakeholders at the table to come up with legislation that actually
addresses the statewide drought, the Majority has negotiated this bill
in secret with only a select group of farming interests in the Central
Valley.
Everyone in California is affected by the ongoing statewide drought
and Congress should not be picking winners and losers. Unfortunately,
this bill does just that.
H.R. 5781 is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to use the
drought as an excuse to steal water from the Bay Delta--and to do so
with zero regard for the folks who depend on that water for their
livelihoods.
The Delta supports thousands of jobs in farming, fishing and tourism,
and has an economic output of more than $4 billion a year.
Millions also rely on the Delta for drinking water. When clean water
is pumped south, the level of salt water in the Delta increases. Folks
can't drink seawater.
The entire state of California is in a drought. It's not due to a
lack of pumping. It's due to a lack of snow and rain.
If the Majority was interested in actually addressing the drought,
there are things we could do to help. Congress can invest in more water
conservation, more water recycling, and more water storage.
With investments like these, we can collect millions of gallons of
new water, help farmers better plan, and create good jobs.
This bill does none of that. Our people deserve better than this
politically driven bill. They deserve solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5781.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 770, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 5781 is postponed.
____________________