[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.

                          ____________________