[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 144 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5841-H5842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAN LUIS REY INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1296) to amend the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act to clarify certain settlement terms, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1296
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SAN LUIS REY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION.
The San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (Public
Law 100-675) is amended by inserting after section 111 the
following:
``SEC. 112. IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds and recognizes as follows:
``(1) The City of Escondido, California, the Vista
Irrigation District, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water
Authority, and the Bands have approved an agreement, dated
December 5, 2014, resolving their disputes over the use of
certain land and water rights in or near the San Luis Rey
River watershed, the terms of which are consistent with this
Act.
``(2) The Bands, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water
Authority, the City of Escondido, California, the Vista
Irrigation District, and the United States have approved a
Settlement Agreement dated January 30, 2015 (hereafter in
this section referred to as the `Settlement Agreement') that
conforms to the requirements of this Act.
``(b) Approval and Ratification.--All provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, including the waivers and releases of
the liability of the United States, the provisions regarding
allottees, and the provision entitled `Effect of Settlement
Agreement and Act,' are hereby approved and ratified.
``(c) Authorizations.--The Secretary and the Attorney
General are authorized to execute, on behalf of the United
States, the Settlement Agreement and any amendments approved
by the parties as necessary to make the Settlement Agreement
consistent with this Act. Such execution shall not constitute
a major Federal action under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary is
further authorized and directed to take all steps that the
Secretary may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the
Settlement Agreement and this Act.
``(d) Continued Federally Reserved And Other Water
Rights.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, including any provisions in this Act, the Bands had,
have, and continue to possess federally reserved rights and
other water rights held in trust by the United States.
``(2) Future proceedings.--In any proceeding involving the
assertion, enforcement, or defense of the rights described in
this subsection, the United States, in its capacity as
trustee for any Band, shall not be a required party and any
decision by the United States regarding participation in any
such proceeding shall not be subject to judicial review or
give rise to any claim for relief against the United States.
``(e) Allottees.--Congress finds and confirms that the
benefits to allottees in the Settlement Agreement, including
the remedies and provisions requiring that any rights of
allottees shall be satisfied from supplemental water and
other water available to the Bands or the Indian Water
Authority, are equitable and fully satisfy the water rights
of the allottees.
``(f) No Precedent.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
or interpreted as a precedent for the litigation or
settlement of Indian reserved water rights.''.
SEC. 2. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS.
The second sentence of section 105(b)(1) of the San Luis
Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 100-675)
is amended by striking the period at the end, and inserting
the following: ``, provided that--
``(i) no more than $3,700,000 per year (in principal,
interest or both) may be so allocated; and
``(ii) none of the funds made available by this section
shall be available unless the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget first certifies in writing to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate that the federal budget will record budgetary outlays
from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund of only the
monies, not to exceed $3,700,000 annually, that the Secretary
of the Treasury, pursuant to this section, allocates and
makes available to the Indian Water Authority from the trust
fund.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Denham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
General Leave
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5842]]
The bill before us today helps bring closure to almost 50 years of
litigation and uncertainty that have impacted tribal and nontribal
communities in southern California.
{time} 1800
Negotiations between five tribes, water districts, cities, and
Federal Government have been ongoing for decades, and this bill
represents the results of those successful negotiations. The Federal
money has already been appropriated for this settlement, and this bill,
as amended, includes provisions that are aimed at resolving direct
spending issues that have been identified by the Congressional Budget
Office.
It is not often that both sides of the aisle come to an agreement on
anything involving California water. While I hope that we will have
agreement on larger California water issues in the near future, this
bill shows that we can come together. I urge my colleagues to support
this bipartisan measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill approves a water rights settlement agreement that would
resolve nearly five decades of litigation. That is a great thing.
The 2015 settlement between the United States and the parties that
Mr. Denham just mentioned is important, and approving this settlement
will finally put an end to years of bitter fighting over water rights
in the San Luis Rey River Basin. It also leaves intact the full amount
of funds Congress previously appropriated for the tribes. This kind of
negotiation is important, and the painstaking work that has gone into
it is to be commended. Now it is up to Congress to do its part to
implement a well-crafted settlement.
I commend my colleagues across the aisle for introducing this bill
and for moving it through the House, and I thank the committee staffs
on both sides who have been working hard to bring this bill to the
floor.
I have to say, though, Mr. Speaker, that all of this good,
collaborative work represented in Mr. Hunter's bill stands in contrast
to another set of pending water agreements in our State. I hope that
the Obama administration will look at this successful example of
collaboration in San Diego County and reconsider its current approach
to the Westlands-San Joaquin Valley drainage disputes, where Congress
and the public have been extremely ill-served.
In the two pending drainage agreements, the Interior Department has
agreed to waive hundreds of millions of dollars that are owed to
taxpayers. They have failed to close off potential litigation risks
from other parties and have failed to secure actual commitments to
clean up the contamination. They have also promised to write a new,
permanent water contract for a party that is not a tribal party but is
in an arid state where everyone is hurting for clean water. Meanwhile,
we weren't able to receive administration testimony on one of the
agreements due, in part, to a pending inspector general investigation
of the beneficiaries.
I am hopeful that, in the next administration and in a new Congress,
we can do a better job on this drainage issue and, specifically, that
we will be able to tackle those California drainage disputes with the
same level of collaboration and problem-solving that we have seen in
the San Luis Rey Basin.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman and my great friend from
California.
Mr. Speaker, the parties to this settlement have been working towards
a resolution for almost 50 years; so I will keep my remarks brief so
that we don't delay them any further. Before I get into the substance
of this bill, I thank Chairman Bishop, Chairman Fleming, and the
Natural Resources Committee staff for their assistance in getting this
bill to the floor right now. I also thank my friends across the aisle.
Today we are addressing an issue that dates back to the late 19th
century, when the Federal Government established reservations--in what
is now my district in northern San Diego County--for five Mission
Indian bands. The creation of these reservations included sufficient
water to meet the bands' present and future needs. However, in 1969,
litigation arose surrounding whether the Federal Government improperly
signed over the bands' water rights claims to two non-Indian
municipalities--what are today the city of Escondido and the Vista
Irrigation District.
In 1988, after decades of litigation, Congress enacted legislation
that was introduced by former Congressman Ron Packard, the 1988 San
Luis Rey Water Rights Settlement Act. Among its provisions, the
legislation directed the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to provide
water annually to the tribes and established the San Luis Rey Tribal
Development Fund. However, that act only becomes effective when all of
the parties to the litigation enter into a settlement agreement
providing for the complete resolution of all claims. That is what the
legislation we are considering today accomplishes.
This legislation puts into effect a previous Department of Justice
settlement agreed to by all parties--the five Mission Indian bands, the
two local municipalities, and the Federal Government--and requires no
new money or water to be enacted. With the passage of H.R. 1296,
Congress can, at last, end this dispute and finalize the action it
sought in passing the original settlement act in 1988.
I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is one small step to
California's water solutions. It is about time that we came together on
this one small issue in California. Now it is time to face the much
bigger issues of a drought-stricken State that continues to see a lack
of water storage. It is time that we find a real solution for all of
California.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1296, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________