[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5082-H5095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER SUPPLY PERMITTING COORDINATION ACT
General Leave
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gosar). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1440
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1654) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate
Federal and State permitting processes related to the construction of
new surface water storage projects on lands under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to
designate the Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit
processing, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the House meets for the second day in a row to consider
another infrastructure bill that has come from the House Natural
Resources Committee and its Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans,
of which I have the honor of chairing. My subcommittee has a strong
infrastructure agenda, already hearing testimony on a number of bills
aimed at improving our Nation's infrastructure and advancing an all-of-
the-above energy and water strategy.
Many of our bills, including H.R. 1654, which we are considering
today, apply simple solutions to expedite maintenance or construction
of water and power infrastructure throughout the Nation. It is vital to
rebuild our Nation's infrastructure, and one of the biggest roadblocks
is the excess of regulatory red tape that applicants have to wade
through before they can even move one shovel of dirt.
In Colorado, where I live, a water project was recently completed
where water owned by the city of Colorado Springs was taken from a
reservoir 60 miles to the south to the city of Colorado Springs for
treatment and distribution. The project took 6 years to build. But
before that could happen, there were over 200 permits and applications
that had to be granted, any one of which could have stopped the whole
thing, and that cost $160 million in application fees, lawyers' time,
and mitigation. That took 8 years. That took longer than the project
itself.
Congressman Tom McClintock's Water Supply Permitting Coordination
[[Page H5083]]
Act seeks to cut regulatory red tape by creating a one-stop-shop
permitting process to the Bureau of Reclamation in order to streamline
the current multiagency permitting processes for new or expanded non-
Federal surface storage facilities.
However, this bill is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Mr.
McClintock's bill allows water storage project sponsors the flexibility
to opt out of this process and, instead, choose the agency and process
that works best for them.
While the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act will allow for
much-needed relief in the sponsor's State of California, this bill will
benefit States throughout the West, including my own State of Colorado.
Mr. McClintock's bill goes hand-in-hand with language in the WIIN
Act, which was signed into law last year, that supports additional
water storage capacity across the West.
I commend my colleague, Mr. McClintock, for bringing up this
commonsense piece of legislation that simply looks to cut regulatory
red tape for water storage projects that are essential to survival in
the West.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my House colleagues to support this bill,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1445
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are debating today what is being called an
infrastructure bill. I wish that were actually the case. Our country
certainly needs Congress to take action to address our country's
infrastructure needs, yet this Congress is spending its time today
debating another sham infrastructure bill that won't actually provide a
single cent for real infrastructure.
Our Nation currently spends less on infrastructure as a percentage of
our GDP than at any time during the past 20 years, and it shows. Far
too many areas around the country have infrastructure that is crumbling
before our eyes. We have seen this occur with the recent tragedy and
the situation for water at the Oroville Dam in California, and this
bill offers no solutions for these issues. In truth, this bill is
simply an environmental deregulation bill disguised as an
infrastructure bill.
Now, the bill's proponents have claimed that environmental laws, and
specifically NEPA, are blocking new dam construction. This claim, Mr.
Chairman, simply put, is bunk. According to the Bureau of Reclamation,
not a single dam has been denied construction because of a lack of
coordination between Reclamation and other agencies or because of
delays associated with environmental review or permitting.
So why do we not see all sorts of new dams sprouting up around the
West like we did for years and years in the previous century?
Because there is no new water to be captured, and because, frankly,
all the best dam locations around the West were taken in the previous
century when we had a heck of a dam-building spree.
New dams don't get built because they don't yield enough water to
justify their multibillion-dollar price tags. You can ask the CRS if
you don't believe other experts. In 2012, the Congressional Research
Service found that the most likely causes of delay for major
infrastructure projects are a lack of funding and State permitting
issues, not environmental laws.
Now, new surface storage may be appropriate in some cases. The fact
is, however, that much of the United States is already saturated with
dams because of that dam-building spree we had in the previous century.
The United States built tens of thousands of dams in the 20th century.
California alone built 1,400 major dams. The best dam sites are already
taken. Other than extraordinarily wet years like this one, thankfully,
in California we are having a hard time even filling up the reservoirs
that we already built.
Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to peddle this
fiction that we have to gut our Nation's environmental laws to build
new dams and other infrastructure. I guess we should not be surprised
because this crusade against our Nation's environmental laws is being
led by a President whose relationship with the truth is complicated at
best.
A couple of weeks ago, President Trump claimed that projects like the
Hoover Dam were built in 5 years because they didn't have to go through
years of permitting and regulation that current infrastructure projects
are subjected to.
Well, the independent fact checkers at The Washington Post evaluated
this claim and they awarded the President's claim, as you can see to my
right, three Pinocchios, which is the rating for statements that
include ``significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.''
Now, the fact checkers noted that, according to the U.S. GAO, 95
percent of public infrastructure projects are actually excluded from
environmental reviews under current law. They further pointed out that
the President ignored the many years of planning, permitting,
negotiating, and preparing that was required to make sure that projects
like the Hoover Dam were financially feasible and actually had public
support.
In fact, dam planning on the Colorado River began in 1902, yet the
Hoover Dam was not completed until 1937. Not completed, I might add,
until the Roosevelt administration put actual public infrastructure
dollars on the table to get that project financed and moving. The
project took many years because, even despite the absence of modern
environmental laws, big complicated projects take time to plan and
finance, and they always have.
I am sorry that my Republican colleagues refuse to let such facts get
in the way of their decades-long crusade against our country's bedrock
environmental laws, but I hope we will eventually move on from this
debate and get on to addressing real problems affecting our
infrastructure, and that real problem is investment.
In terms of water infrastructure, our Nation is still not making
necessary investments like water reuse projects and recycling projects.
These are 21st century infrastructure projects that can provide us with
water supplies that don't depend on the whims of an increasingly
unpredictable hydrology. Given our changing climate, we can no longer
rely exclusively on our 20th century infrastructure projects like dams.
Despite this, we have barely scratched the surface on building modern
water infrastructure projects like reuse, recycling, desalination,
groundwater storage, storm water capture, and water-use efficiency
projects. Our country currently reuses less than 10 percent of our
Nation's wastewater. Climate change will require us to do better. As
George W. Bush's Reclamation Commissioner once said, the reuse of
wastewater and recycled water could actually be the next river for the
Western United States to tap for critical water supply.
This Congress should be working across the aisle to fully tap that
next great river for the 21st century.
Reoperating existing facilities, modernizing those operations, is
another example of something we should be working together on across
the aisle.
All around the West we are dealing with dams and reservoirs that are
being operated with the best technology from decades ago. The flood
control manual at Oroville Dam, for example, hasn't been updated
since 1970, which actually makes it cutting edge when compared to many
of the reservoirs that are operating on 1950s flood control manuals. We
are using slide rules instead of computers, with meteorological
predictions that are based on historic data, backward-looking data,
instead of looking up at the sky and using the data from modern
satellite technology.
At Folsom Dam, we are watching a long overdue update to operations as
part of a new auxiliary spillway. Forecast-informed operations, which
is something that I have long advocated as part of comprehensive water
legislation, is something we could work on together, and it would
provide significant increases in water supply.
If my Republican friends are interested in expediting environmental
reviews for infrastructure projects, then there is another thing that
we can work on together, and that is we can end the slashing of budgets
in Federal agencies that are in charge of environmental reviews for
infrastructure projects. Budget cuts do nothing but hamper the ability
of these agencies to participate in the review process and to protect
our other Nation's fisheries and other natural resources.
[[Page H5084]]
This bill before us today compounds the problem by further
undercutting the important role these agencies play to protect our
natural resources. That is why several conservation and fishing
industry groups have warned that this Congress should reject this bill,
that it threatens tens of thousands of jobs in the fishing industry
across the Pacific Coast.
Many of our Nation's iconic fisheries are already on the brink of
extinction. We have heard firsthand in our committee from the fishermen
struggling to pay their mortgages, boats being scrapped because owners
can't pay mooring fees, homes being repossessed, and restaurants,
hotels, and other retail and service businesses struggling just to
scrape by. Let's not add to these struggles by passing an ill-conceived
bill that does nothing to actually improve our infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. Members are advised and reminded not to engage in
personalities toward the President.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. McCarthy), our
majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his work on this.
Mr. Chairman, I always get excited when I hear people speak on the
floor, especially when they come from California. Mr. Chairman, it is
always interesting when people want to tell us what is the best way to
make things happen.
It is interesting, in California, when the legislature was controlled
by Democrats, they did waive CEQA, but it wasn't for a dam. It wasn't
to prepare for a drought we were going through. But they waived it
twice, all for sports. One was in San Francisco, and one was in L.A. It
seems odd, but sometimes people have their priorities, I guess, not in
the right place.
Now, Mr. Chairman, California and the West recently endured the worst
drought in our century. Though it was the worst drought, this was not
our first. We have faced droughts for generations, and each time the
rain and snow came back and delivered the water that we needed to
survive.
Just like previous years, this past winter was a godsend to
Californians; the wettest on record. Living in the naturally dry region
that we do, you would think it would be common practice to prepare for
inevitable times of drought by capturing water when Mother Nature
blesses us with the rain and snow. But the fact is that we aren't doing
enough to store the water we do get for the times we don't get it.
So what can we do now? What would help the people in our district and
across California and across the West to prepare for future droughts
that we know are coming?
We should start by building more dams and reservoirs.
So what is stopping us?
Well, some is a ridiculous permitting process that forces us to wait
and wait and wait when actually we should be acting.
Just look at history. Take the High Savery Dam in Wyoming. It took 14
years to permit the project but only 2 years to build it. It was
finished in 2004. Think about how much the world has changed in those
14 years of time.
In 1990, somewhere around 5 million people had cell phones and only
about 15 percent of Americans owned a computer. By 2004, when the dam
was finished, about 180 million people had cell phones and 62 percent
of Americans owned a computer. In 1990, the most popular movie was
Total Recall. By 2004, we were already on to Shrek 2.
Looking forward to my home State, we can't wait 14 years after
starting the permitting process to finish our projects. The Temperance
Flat Reservoir, once fully operational, can provide enough water to
meet the needs of 172,000 households for an entire year. Finishing the
Sites Reservoir proposal could provide 2 million California homes with
enough water for a year. That is an astounding number. But, Mr.
Chairman, I am sure on this floor we will hear those 2 million should
actually wait. But I guess for a baseball stadium, no need to wait.
So fixing the process isn't just about saving some headaches or a few
hours of time. This is about making sure millions of people in
California and across America have the water they need and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Tom McClintock for this
legislation. Fixing this permitting process for water storage is more
than just common sense. It is about making us a nation of doers again
to get the American what they actually need.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. McClintock has worked. He has tried to work with
both sides of the aisle. He has been through this process.
But you know what?
Mr. McClintock has been home. He has been listening to his
constituents on both sides of the aisle that don't have water. We have
been through these droughts. We know these droughts will come again,
and they have only been worse in the last couple of years.
Why?
Because of what has been imposed by the Federal Government. Even in
the years where we have more than 170 percent of snowpack, we don't
keep the guarantee of 100 percent of the water.
So as the environmental laws continue to take water away and put it
out to the ocean instead of providing for the fruits to be grown and
the fiber across our country and provide the water for the citizens of
California, we should build more dams, and they should not have to wait
14 years with only 2 years to build it. We can do better, we should do
better, and we will do better when we pass this bill.
{time} 1500
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I was in the California Legislature for at least one of the those
environmental waiver bills that the majority leader referenced
involving an NFL stadium, and I am glad to hear him criticize that
because I, too, criticized it. It was a bipartisan mistake. I voted
against it.
There was a bit of vindication because at least one of those stadiums
ended up not getting built anyway, despite the environmental waiver,
and it sort of exposed the fact that these environmental laws are often
put forward as scapegoats. We are often told that if you just clear
away the environmental permitting, we can do these things.
There were many other reasons why that stadium didn't get built,
complicated issues involving NFL franchises and financing, which is
usually the real scapegoat when these projects aren't moving forward.
So it is a worthy example to talk about in the context of this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership on the Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, droughts are nature's fault; they happen. But water
shortages are our fault. Water shortages are a choice that we made a
generation ago when we stopped building new reservoirs to meet the
needs of a growing population.
The unvarnished truth is we will not solve our water shortages until
we build more reservoirs, and we cannot build new reservoirs until we
overhaul the laws that have made their construction endlessly time-
consuming and, ultimately, cost-prohibitive.
For years, the Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony from
frustrated water districts unable to navigate the Byzantine maze of
regulations and the phalanx of competing, overlapping, duplicative, and
often contradictory Federal agencies.
After years spent trying to satisfy one agency, another suddenly pops
up to claim jurisdiction with an entirely new set of demands in an
often endless permitting process, despite the fact they are studying
the same project in the same location with the same data. The burden
this places on our ability to deliver water for the next generation is
crushing.
The leader mentioned the High Savery Dam in Wyoming--14 years to
permit, only 2 years to actually build. The Federal Government has
literally studied four storage projects in California nearly to death.
One project, the Sites Reservoir, had over 50 alternative
[[Page H5085]]
locations studied, and there is no end in sight for the feasibility
process on that potential reservoir. Similar delays have prevented the
expansion of the Shasta reservoir for 39 years.
Mr. Huffman tells us that no dam permits have been denied because of
this. The problem is very few dam permits have been approved because of
this. And the costs are caused by cost-prohibitive delays in time that
run up millions and millions of dollars in costs until the agencies
simply throw up their hands and give up.
H.R. 1654 will bring order from this bureaucratic chaos. It
establishes a framework in which Federal agencies with permitting
responsibilities for the construction of new reservoirs must work
together, coordinate their schedules, share data and technical
materials, and make their findings publicly available. The end result
will be fewer delays, more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and,
ultimately, more abundant water supplies.
It is modeled on the Obama administration's approach to constructing
new electric transmission lines to accommodate its reliance on wind and
solar generation. There is nothing new in this process. In October of
2009, the administration formed the Interagency Rapid Response Team for
Transmission, a consortium of nine Federal agencies to coordinate a
single unified environmental review document for each project analysis.
It is also modeled on provisions sponsored by House Democrats that
expedited improvements on the Hetch Hetchy dam serving the San
Francisco region. This bill simply says, if there is a potential
project on Interior or Agriculture Department lands, then the Bureau of
Reclamation will be the coordinating agency for the permits. That is a
one-stop permitting agency.
It will call together all of the agencies, the local and State
jurisdictions and tribal governments of our Indian nations, establish a
timeframe for studying decisionmaking, and then coordinate all the
reviews and analyses and opinions and statements and permits or
licenses and other Federal approvals required under Federal law.
It also requires transparency, assuring that all data is available to
the public online so the science guiding these decisions can be
rigorously scrutinized by all interested parties.
It also allows water agencies to fund the review process if Federal
funding isn't provided, removing one of the excuses that Federal
agencies have made in slow-walking or stalling project reviews.
I want to make this very clear: It does not bypass or alter or waive
any environmental or safety laws. It doesn't waive CEQ or ESA or NEPA
or any other law. It simply says the process needs to be more
efficient, and the government agencies should coordinate and cooperate
with each other rather than talking past each other as isolated and
often inscrutable fiefdoms.
Five years of drought in California brought entire cities within
months of exhausting their water supplies. The epic drought has now
been followed with the wettest year on record, and we have helplessly
watched our dams spilling millions of acre-feet of water to the ocean
because we have no place to store the excess for the next drought.
Perhaps that is nature's way of reminding us that, if we didn't store
water in wet years, we won't have it during dry ones, and the economic
and social devastation have been immense.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, if you want to misuse our environmental
laws to block any new water storage, well, then you should vote against
this bill. We will continue to see increasingly severe water shortages
and spiralling water and electricity bills.
But if you want to preserve our environmental laws, you ought to be
supporting this bill because it places those laws back within a
workable and practical framework, and it places our society back on the
road to an era of abundance where our children can enjoy green lawns
and gardens, brightly lit homes, and abundant and affordable groceries
from America's agricultural cornucopia.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the State of California is being mentioned quite a bit in
this conversation.
It bears noting that the State of California is not asking for this
legislation; and, in fact, the State of California has consistently
opposed the rolling back of environmental standards and is busy passing
bill after bill in this State legislative session to try to backfill
for anticipated rollbacks in Federal environmental standards. So,
certainly, if we are talking about the State of California and what it
wants and it needs, its elected leaders are taking a very different
direction than posing the false choice between environmental standards
and infrastructure.
Again, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has emphasized that
there are other factors, that it is not environmental review that has
stopped any water projects in the West. The Congressional Research
Service has reached the same conclusion.
And I just heard from my friend, Mr. McClintock, that we can't build
new reservoirs until we change these laws. Well, I have got to point
out that California has built new reservoirs under current law. You can
ask the folks in Contra Costa County about Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
They didn't need any environmental waivers or special legislation.
They built their dam. And in fact, they are getting ready to move
forward with an expansion of that surface storage project. It should be
broadly supported, and they are not asking for any special tweaks to
the environmental laws. The same would apply to Diamond Valley
Reservoir in southern California.
And, in fact, we have actually added nearly 6 million acre-feet of
new surface and groundwater storage over the past few decades in
California, all while honoring bedrock environmental protections like
ESA and NEPA.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
the Centennial State of Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague,
Representative McClintock, for putting forward a very sensible piece of
legislation.
The Colorado Water Congress, who supports this bill, stated in their
letter:
The economic viability of the State of Colorado is
dependent on safe and reliable water supply. In recent years,
the ability of water managers to meet growth demand and to
create water storage has become more challenging.
In Colorado, the Windy Gap Project, whose formal environmental
permitting process began in 2003, won't see construction start until at
least 2019, with water storage ready by 2022--16 years to permit, 3
years to build.
For too long, Federal agencies have failed to properly coordinate and
time their reviews of water supply project applications, resulting in
missed opportunities for increased water storage during our wetter
seasons.
Water is the lifeblood of Western communities. Without it, most
communities in the Western United States could not survive, so it only
makes sense to store as much of it as we reasonably can during those
wetter years. Yet the Federal Government presents roadblock after
roadblock that prevents a timely and cost-effective completion to many
of these projects.
This legislation will streamline the permitting process and increase
agency accountability by placing the Bureau of Reclamation at the
center of the process and ensuring all other agencies are required to
report to it in a timely fashion.
It is an effective piece of legislation, an effective approach to a
problem that should not exist. I urge my colleagues to support this
measure.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, this is an issue that is, I think, one of most
important long-term issues that we deal with not only in California and
Western States but, really, in the world, because the fact is that
water is a crucial element of the sustainability of all of us, and it
always has been.
With the planet clicking 7 billion people a couple of years ago, soon
to be 9 billion people by the middle of this century, with climate
change clearly impacting our ability to manage our water supplies, we
must look at the
[[Page H5086]]
long-term needs of using all the water tools in our water toolbox. And
this is one effort to, in fact, look at how we can provide additional
storage capacity not only in California, but elsewhere, so that when we
have these periodic times--and we measure water on 10-year averages.
We have had near-record rainfall and snow in the snow-packed
mountains of California, which we were blessed with the last 4 months.
And after five of the most extremely dry periods of time, to have this
rain and snow is wonderful.
But we know that you have got to plan for the future. And so in cases
like California where it is either feast or famine, having an
additional water reservoir supply is one of the important water
management tools in our water toolbox, along with conservation, along
with better irrigation technologies which we are implementing, along
with conservation of all sorts of kinds, desalinization. All of these
matter, as does storage.
This year, millions and millions of acre-feet of water have gone
unused because of the lack of storage. This measure will help, but
there are other things that we have to do to fix the broken water
system in California, in the West, and, really, we can be a template if
we better manage our water resources for the entire planet in the light
of climate change.
I ask that we support this legislation. It is helpful, and we must do
much more.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
the California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from California for
supporting this very important legislation.
We all, all of us in California, have experienced what happens when
you have radical environmentalist nonsense determining policy. We have
just gone through one of the worst droughts in our history, yet during
that drought, those wonderful California environmental planners saw to
it that billions of gallons of freshwater were dumped into the ocean
instead of being redirected towards producing food crops in our Central
Valley area or providing water to drink or providing water so that
people could afford to have water throughout our State. Instead, it was
dumped into the ocean.
Now, what we needed and what we need now that the drought is over is
more water storage because we are in favor of people, not some
grandiose concepts of what a better view counts--now, without people in
it, that is, of course.
Now we need to think about what our policies will impact on average
people. And what we have in this radical environmental approach is
opposition to storing water, now that we have some extra water, right
after a drought.
Now, whose side are you on?
You can't tell me you are on the side of ordinary people, because
when water prices go up and there is not enough water for the crops,
the price of food goes up and the price of water goes up.
Who is the worst hurt?
America's lowest income people are the ones who are hurt the most,
the ones who can't afford to pay the little extra for food that it
costs when it costs more money to grow crops in the middle of a
drought.
{time} 1515
So with that said, I dramatically support doing something for the
people, not some environmental theory--nonsensical theories in most
cases--that we are facing doom if we store water.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we store water, that is going to be bad for the
environment? I mean, I am sorry. That makes no sense to me.
And it doesn't make sense to ordinary people either that after a
drought, that in some way it is against the environment to make it
easier for us to store water so we don't have to have the same
destruction and the same lowering of the standard of living of our
poorer people when the next drought comes around.
This act by Mr. Tom McClintock, H.R. 1654, will make it easier and
quicker for us to build these dams. By the way, if we don't do this,
many of those dams will probably be built, only we are talking about
the evaporation not of water, but of money. After you have to go
through years and years of paperwork, what evaporates is the money that
should be going into education and transportation programs.
No. It is wrong all the way around not to permit people to go as fast
as we can rationally and engineeringwise to build storage for our water
supply today so when the next drought comes around, ordinary people
won't be hurt.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague from Orange County for those comments. I have
been to Orange County and I have seen the cutting-edge water management
work taking place in Mr. Rohrabacher's district. Among other things,
they are doing amazing groundwater recharge and water-use efficiency,
water recycling. In fact, they have got one of the most cutting-edge
potable reuse systems in the country. It is their reliance on those
21st century water management tools instead of large reservoirs--that,
for the most part, were running dry during this drought we just went
through--that enabled them to get through the most critical drought any
of us have ever seen in much better shape than any communities around
the State.
So kudos to the forward-looking water managers in Orange County. But
if the gentleman is concerned about low-income people being impacted by
water shortage and water management issues, I really hope he will pay a
visit to my district, because on the north coast of California, you get
the other end of this water management challenge.
The fishing communities of the north coast have been hammered by the
fact that our iconic salmon runs are teetering on the brink of
extinction. We have left very little flow in the rivers, and this
drought only exacerbated the problem.
So I am representing people that are deeply impacted by water
shortage and water management decisions that need to be part of this
consideration instead of trivialized when we talk about water wasting
out through the estuary. This is water that sustains these fishery runs
that have been the lifeblood of the communities in my district for many
years.
Now, just to inject a couple of facts into what has been called a
radical environmental agenda that caused the waste of all of this water
during the drought--in fact, that didn't happen. In 2014, the fact is
only 4 percent of all the runoff in the entire Bay Delta Watershed
flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental protection. In
2015, it was even less. Two percent of the runoff for the entire
watershed made it all the way out to San Francisco Bay solely for
environmental purposes. The rest of that flow that made it through was
to control salinity in the delta so that you could continue to serve
municipal and industrial and other water-use needs. Most of that water
was diverted and used.
We need to remember the facts in what can sometimes be a hyperbolic
discussion of California water.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Gosar), who is also a subcommittee chairman on the
Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1654,
legislation sponsored by my good friend and colleague, Tom McClintock.
For centuries, Western States have fought over scarce water supplies.
We even have an expression in the West that says whiskey is for
drinking and water is for fighting over.
The water scarcity in the West led our visionary forefathers to build
Federal water storage projects throughout to provide water, hydropower,
recreation, flood control, and environmental benefits while adhering to
State water rights. These were nonpartisan endeavors, as evidenced by
President John F. Kennedy dedicating the San Luis Dam in California.
Now, while the Central Arizona Project came after President Kennedy,
it continues to bring prosperity to Arizona's cities, tribal
communities, and ranches almost 50 years from its inception.
[[Page H5087]]
The Glen Canyon Dam and other projects affiliated with the Colorado
River Storage Project provided the backbone of a regional economy that
produced year-round water and emissions-free hydropower.
Lake Powell, the reservoir behind Glen Canyon, allows for millions of
dollars' worth of recreational boating annually and even provided the
scenery for the astronaut crash landing in the 1968 science fiction
classic, ``The Planet of the Apes.''
For generations, these projects provided benefits to a growing
society, but what the Federal Government helped give, it has been
taking away.
The current regulatory process for constructing new surface water
storage is a bureaucratic maze that requires numerous permits and
approvals from a multitude of different Federal, State, and local
agencies. Conflicting requirements continue to cause unnecessary
delays, kill jobs, and result in us failing to capture precious water
supplies. Ranchers, agricultural and municipal water providers and
other stakeholders in the West need a clear process without the
bureaucracy.
H.R. 1654 establishes such a process by creating a one-stop-shop
permitting shop, with the Bureau of Reclamation in charge of the
permitting process for these important water storage projects in 17
Western States. This makes a lot of sense, as the Bureau of
Reclamation's multipurpose water projects made the West what it is
today. Generations of our prior leaders focused on the need to capture
water and deliver it to cities and fields.
Our communities always need water, and with the projected population
increases, we are going to need a lot more of it in the near future.
Let's build on the good work of previous generations. Get the
bureaucracy out of the way and pass H.R. 1654 so we have a clear
process moving forward for preserving worthwhile water infrastructure
projects.
There is an old adage: save for a rainy day. In this case, it should
be: save on a rainy day.
This act facilitates that very concept.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for sponsoring
such needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of
this commonsense bill.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It has been a good conversation, but I hope one thing is clear: this
is not an infrastructure bill. This is an environmental deregulation
bill that is masquerading behind the issue of infrastructure.
Environmental laws, environmental reviews are not the reason new dams
have not been built and it is not the reason new dams will not be
built. All of the serious analyses point to other factors, the big one
being they don't generate enough water to justify the huge price tags
that go along with these projects. They are just rarely financeable,
rarely do they make economic sense. So let's not scapegoat the
environmental laws to try to address that problem.
Now, if my colleagues across the aisle are interested in an honest
infrastructure bill, including a water infrastructure bill, they will
find a lot of willing partners across the aisle, including myself. We
have put forth all sorts of ideas. We want to see water infrastructure.
Surface storage and new dams can be part of that, but we have got to
put real dollars on the table. We have got to do what prior generations
did when they got serious about building infrastructure, and not hide
behind this ulterior agenda of gutting our environmental laws,
repackaging that, and representing that as being responsive to our
Nation's critical need for new infrastructure. This bill simply doesn't
meet that test.
I request that my colleagues vote ``no,'' and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I close, I do want to point out a bit of circular reasoning that
my friend from California is using. He says that it is not the
environmental regulations or the red tape that slows down the
construction of dams, it is the high cost. But what he doesn't
recognize or is not willing to admit is that the high cost is caused by
all the red tape and environmental regulations. So that is arguing in
circles, and I don't accept that.
Again, I commend the bill's sponsor for this bill that looks to
promote additional and much-needed water storage throughout the West.
Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1654
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Water Supply Permitting
Coordination Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of
Reclamation.
(2) Cooperating agencies.--The term ``cooperating agency''
means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review,
analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or other
approval or decision required for a qualifying project under
applicable Federal laws and regulations, or a State agency
subject to section 3(c).
(3) Qualifying projects.--The term ``qualifying projects''
means new surface water storage projects in the States
covered under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter
1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act
(43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on lands administered by
the Department of the Interior or the Department of
Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-of-way, lease,
or any private holding, unless the project applicant elects
not to participate in the process authorized by this Act.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF LEAD AGENCY AND COOPERATING
AGENCIES.
(a) Establishment of Lead Agency.--The Bureau is
established as the lead agency for purposes of coordinating
all reviews, analyses, opinions, statements, permits,
licenses, or other approvals or decisions required under
Federal law to construct qualifying projects.
(b) Identification and Establishment of Cooperating
Agencies.--The Commissioner of the Bureau shall--
(1) identify, as early as practicable upon receipt of an
application for a qualifying project, any Federal agency that
may have jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion,
statement, permit, license, approval, or decision required
for a qualifying project under applicable Federal laws and
regulations; and
(2) notify any such agency, within a reasonable timeframe,
that the agency has been designated as a cooperating agency
in regards to the qualifying project unless that agency
responds to the Bureau in writing, within a timeframe set
forth by the Bureau, notifying the Bureau that the agency--
(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
qualifying project;
(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the
qualifying project or any review, analysis, opinion,
statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision
associated therewith; or
(C) does not intend to submit comments on the qualifying
project or conduct any review of such a project or make any
decision with respect to such project in a manner other than
in cooperation with the Bureau.
(c) State Authority.--A State in which a qualifying project
is being considered may choose, consistent with State law--
(1) to participate as a cooperating agency; and
(2) to make subject to the processes of this Act all State
agencies that--
(A) have jurisdiction over the qualifying project;
(B) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or
opinion for the qualifying project; or
(C) are required to make a determination on issuing a
permit, license, or approval for the qualifying project.
SEC. 4. BUREAU RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) In General.--The principal responsibilities of the
Bureau under this Act are--
(1) to serve as the point of contact for applicants, State
agencies, Indian tribes, and others regarding proposed
qualifying projects;
(2) to coordinate preparation of unified environmental
documentation that will serve as the basis for all Federal
decisions necessary to authorize the use of Federal lands for
qualifying projects; and
(3) to coordinate all Federal agency reviews necessary for
project development and construction of qualifying projects.
(b) Coordination Process.--The Bureau shall have the
following coordination responsibilities:
(1) Preapplication coordination.--Notify cooperating
agencies of proposed qualifying
[[Page H5088]]
projects not later than 30 days after receipt of a proposal
and facilitate a preapplication meeting for prospective
applicants, relevant Federal and State agencies, and Indian
tribes--
(A) to explain applicable processes, data requirements, and
applicant submissions necessary to complete the required
Federal agency reviews within the timeframe established; and
(B) to establish the schedule for the qualifying project.
(2) Consultation with cooperating agencies.--Consult with
the cooperating agencies throughout the Federal agency review
process, identify and obtain relevant data in a timely
manner, and set necessary deadlines for cooperating agencies.
(3) Schedule.--Work with the qualifying project applicant
and cooperating agencies to establish a project schedule. In
establishing the schedule, the Bureau shall consider, among
other factors--
(A) the responsibilities of cooperating agencies under
applicable laws and regulations;
(B) the resources available to the cooperating agencies and
the non-Federal qualifying project sponsor, as applicable;
(C) the overall size and complexity of the qualifying
project;
(D) the overall schedule for and cost of the qualifying
project; and
(E) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources
that may be affected by the qualifying project.
(4) Environmental compliance.--Prepare a unified
environmental review document for each qualifying project
application, incorporating a single environmental record on
which all cooperating agencies with authority to issue
approvals for a given qualifying project shall base project
approval decisions. Help ensure that cooperating agencies
make necessary decisions, within their respective
authorities, regarding Federal approvals in accordance with
the following timelines:
(A) Not later than 1 year after acceptance of a completed
project application when an environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact is determined to be the
appropriate level of review under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(B) Not later than 1 year and 30 days after the close of
the public comment period for a draft environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), when an environmental impact
statement is required under the same.
(5) Consolidated administrative record.--Maintain a
consolidated administrative record of the information
assembled and used by the cooperating agencies as the basis
for agency decisions.
(6) Project data records.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with Federal law, ensure that all project data is
submitted and maintained in generally accessible electronic
format, compile, and where authorized under existing law,
make available such project data to cooperating agencies, the
qualifying project applicant, and to the public.
(7) Project manager.--Appoint a project manager for each
qualifying project. The project manager shall have authority
to oversee the project and to facilitate the issuance of the
relevant final authorizing documents, and shall be
responsible for ensuring fulfillment of all Bureau
responsibilities set forth in this section and all
cooperating agency responsibilities under section 5.
SEC. 5. COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) Adherence to Bureau Schedule.--
(1) Timeframes.--On notification of an application for a
qualifying project, the head of each cooperating agency shall
submit to the Bureau a timeframe under which the cooperating
agency reasonably will be able to complete the authorizing
responsibilities of the cooperating agency.
(2) Schedule.--
(A) Use of timeframes.--The Bureau shall use the timeframes
submitted under this subsection to establish the project
schedule under section 4.
(B) Adherence.--Each cooperating agency shall adhere to the
project schedule established by the Bureau under subparagraph
(A).
(b) Environmental Record.--The head of each cooperating
agency shall submit to the Bureau all environmental review
material produced or compiled in the course of carrying out
activities required under Federal law, consistent with the
project schedule established by the Bureau under subsection
(a)(2).
(c) Data Submission.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with Federal law, the head of each cooperating
agency shall submit all relevant project data to the Bureau
in a generally accessible electronic format, subject to the
project schedule established by the Bureau under subsection
(a)(2).
SEC. 6. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, after public notice in
accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Administrative Procedure Act''), may accept and expend
funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity to expedite
the evaluation of a permit of that entity related to a
qualifying project.
(b) Effect on Permitting.--
(1) Evaluation of permits.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits
carried out using funds accepted under this section shall--
(A) be reviewed by the Regional Director of the Bureau of
the region in which the qualifying project or activity is
located (or a designee); and
(B) use the same procedures for decisions that would
otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for
similar projects or activities not carried out using funds
authorized under this section.
(2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary and the head of each cooperating
agency receiving funds under this section for a qualifying
project shall ensure that the use of the funds accepted under
this section for the qualifying project shall not--
(A) substantively or procedurally impact impartial
decisionmaking with respect to the issuance of permits; or
(B) diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or
regulatory authorities of the cooperating agency.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted
under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the
evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(1)(A).
(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that
all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized
under this section are made available to the public,
including on the Internet.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 115-186. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 115-186.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 2, after the period insert ``Such term shall
also include State-led projects (as defined in section
4007(a)(2) of the WIIN Act) for new surface water storage
projects in the States covered under the Act of June 17, 1902
(32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and
amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) constructed on
lands administered by the Department of the Interior or the
Department of Agriculture, exclusive of any easement, right-
of-way, lease, or any private holding, unless the project
applicant elects not to participate in the process authorized
by this Act.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Lamborn, for his leadership on this, and Mr. McClintock
for bringing the bill in chief forward here that I am asking to amend
today.
This amendment ensures that State-led projects can also enjoy the
coordination that the bill itself will do, State-led surface storage
projects such as Sites Reservoir. These will be defined in the WIIN Act
and they will be eligible under H.R. 1654's permitting.
Doing so enables States to direct their own resources towards
infrastructure needs at lower cost and improves States' ability to
partner with the Federal Government on projects that provide both State
and Federal benefits.
Adopting this amendment to include State-led projects will allow the
development of more water infrastructure more rapidly and at no
additional cost to the Federal Government. For example, in my home
State of California, the voters have approved billions of dollars
toward infrastructure projects such as Sites Reservoir--not too far
from my neighborhood--which will include enough water storage for
millions more people in our State.
Now, if you know the saga of Sites Reservoir, the locals there will
tell you they have been talking about it, studying it, poking it,
prodding it for about 40 years. Bureaucracy plays a major role in that.
So the bill in chief is not looking to change environmental laws or
get rid of environmental laws. Indeed, my colleague on the other side
of the aisle talked about having an honest discussion in this area.
Well, an honest discussion would show that the bill in chief is one
that is merely coordinating. It is not changing the Water Quality Act.
It is not changing NEPA, CEQA, or anything else, other than getting
these people all in one room to coordinate at one time.
Yes, we, indeed, have costs involved, because people give up, whether
it is
[[Page H5089]]
private sector money or the people that pass bonds as State voters give
up after a while because they don't think their dollars are actually
getting to the projects, when they hear needless, endless delays, when
we have this game of bureaucratic badminton being played by various
agencies knocking one idea to another, taking years of time and
additional costs, especially those surprise ones at the last minute.
Lake Oroville is in my own backyard. Now, what we have seen there
since the crisis happened with the breakage of the spillway is that
coordination under an emergency, where, even though there are some
trying to throw roadblocks in there, people recognized coordination was
needed, because when 188,000 people have to evacuate an area due to
some unknown factors with how the infrastructure is holding up, then
they saw the need to fix it.
{time} 1530
And the spillway at Lake Oroville is going to be fixed pretty rapidly
over a 2-year period and made usable in this short amount of time. So
that is how coordination can work to get a needed project done when it
can be an emergency.
What we need to quit doing is waiting for emergencies like this and
on levee projects when we know for years and years that levee
projects--highways, bridges, other infrastructure that have this
bureaucratic badminton played when people are trying to get these
projects done--need to be coordinated. That is what this bill does.
My amendment adds to it, again, an important ability for State
dollars under State-led infrastructure projects to be included in that.
So I think it makes a heck of a lot of sense and will help our voters
like in California and others around the country to be able to enjoy
that coordination.
Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. We support the amendment. It improves the bill by
expanding opportunities for increased water storage across the West. I
urge its adoption.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Marin for
yielding me 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment offered by my
colleague, Congressman LaMalfa. As I said earlier, we need to fix the
broken water system in California because reliability is key.
We have a water system that was designed for 20 million people.
Today, we have 40 million people living in California. By the year
2030, we are going to have 50 million people living in California.
The simple truth is that in the San Joaquin Valley, where I live,
which has been ground zero for the impact of an unreliable water supply
because of this broken system, we have felt the devastation of the
drought. This lack of reliability is due to many factors that have
intensified as a result of climate change, impact on regulations, and
other factors.
Luckily this year, as I noted earlier, it has been a deluge of rain
and snow, and for that we are thankful. But we know in California that
it is either feast or famine, and so, sadly, we must plan for the
future, and that means including surface storage and using subsurface
replenishment of our ground water and all the other water tools that
are part of this water toolbox that is critical for the long term.
We need more storage. We need the underlying legislation that this
provides. While not completely fixing or resolving our challenges, it
is a small step, and, as was noted before, this does not amend NEPA or
CEQA, but it simply provides a timeline, and a timeline is a good
thing.
This collaboration that this legislation envisions is not too
different from the collaboration that the Governor is working with the
Department of the Interior on, the proposal to fix the plumbing system
in the delta. They have a record of decision that has a timeline.
So if surface storage water is going to receive funding and support
under the WIIN Act that we passed in December, matching State funds,
along with this effort to provide the timeline, will be helpful.
Let me finally say that sustainability of our agricultural economy,
sustainability of putting food and fiber on America's dinner table
every night, and helping feed other parts of the world is really what
we are talking about here. Reliability is key to making sure that we
are sustainable under the adverse impacts of a lack of a fixed water
system. We need to address this.
This legislation is a small step in providing timelines for certainty
for this collaboration for this process to work better. I urge support
of this amendment.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Costa, for
his bipartisan support and effort in ensuring we have a proactive way
of doing things in California on water infrastructure. I appreciate
that a lot.
So for anybody to say that the amount of effort it takes to get past
the bureaucratic process, to simply get the existing permits under
existing laws, is not burdensome is naive. Indeed, whether we are
talking highway projects, levee projects, bridge projects, and, more
particularly, this bill, water storage projects, we need this
coordination.
So the coordination will mean more for the American people, more for
the people of my own State, with less dollars, less delay, and they can
start enjoying the fruits of this project, the fruit of their tax
dollars.
So my amendment simply adds to that, State-led efforts, whether it
has been a bond passed by a State or other State funding in California
and other States, that they, too, can enjoy that coordination that this
bill would provide.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, unfortunately, must oppose this
amendment. I am not sure if it was the intent of my friend, Mr.
LaMalfa, but it appears that this amendment would prioritize permitting
surface storage projects under the WIIN Act and not groundwater storage
WIIN Act projects.
The WIIN Act, of course, authorized money for both surface and
groundwater storage projects. These projects are yet to be named and
prioritized. That still needs to happen.
Yet this amendment applies this bill's streamlining provisions to
WIIN's ``State-led projects for new surface water storage projects.''
Now, providing surface storage above all other types of water
infrastructure projects certainly is in keeping with some of the
obsession with new dams that we have heard from my colleagues across
the aisle. But the truth is, there are all sorts of other worthy
projects that are needed if we are going to get serious about water
infrastructure in California; and to put a thumb on the scale for one
particular kind is not the right way to go.
So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 115-186.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 7. CONDITION ON APPLICABILITY.
This Act shall not apply to any project that the Secretary
determines could cause harm to commercial fisheries.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I, like many of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, am concerned about
[[Page H5090]]
the long-term prospects for water infrastructure and storage in the
West.
As the western climate continues to get hotter, we are going to have
more hot, dry, drought years. That is why many States and communities,
including the cities that I represent, are doing all that they can to
make their water infrastructure more resilient, to reduce unneeded
runoff, to recycle water, and to store as much ground water as
possible.
To support these critical activities, Congress needs to invest in our
country's water infrastructure. The bill before us today does not do
any of these things. It does not authorize new or additional funding
for water projects. It is not an infrastructure bill.
Instead, the bill before us today makes many Americans nervous
because it loosens key environmental safeguards and imposes arbitrary
deadlines for the approval of dams on our rivers and streams. This bill
threatens the health of our streams, our rivers, and coastlines, which
could harm fish populations important to commercial fisheries.
Therefore, I am offering a straightforward amendment. It simply
requires proposed new dams to go through the normal project review
process if they are likely to harm commercial fisheries.
The construction of poorly permitted dams has been a major cause of
mortality for California's fisheries. In California's Central Valley,
they currently block Chinook salmon and steelhead from more than 90
percent of the historical spawning habitat.
My amendment will help protect my State's economically important
fisheries from further harm. Commercial fisheries from my home State
sustain thousands of jobs across California and the West Coast, and,
currently, we have what can only be described as a fisheries crisis.
Many fisheries are at record-low population levels. According to some
estimates, 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct or
disappear within the next century if current trends continue.
Simply put, many West Coast fishermen and fisherwomen who depend on
California's fish runs are hanging on by a thread. The thousands of
fishermen and fisherwomen, and other employees of restaurants, hotels,
and other businesses that depend on healthy fish runs, have been
struggling mightily.
Even now, many fishermen and fisherwomen are still recovering from
the total closure of the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in
2008 and 2009, because of poor California salmon returns. The closure
devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry and, ultimately, required
millions of dollars in disaster aid from Congress.
In recent years, fishery managers have also had to severely restrict
commercial fishing season because of low population levels. My
amendment will help prevent future harm to people who are already
struggling just to get by.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, first I would point out to my friend
from California, if the climate continues to warm, we are not going to
be able to store as much water in our mountains as snow, and we are
going to need much more surface water storage reservoirs than the laws
have allowed us to build because of the delays they have imposed in
planning and construction.
The gentleman's amendment gives the Secretary of the Interior the
ability to ignore this streamlining law if he determines it could
``cause harm to commercial fisheries.''
Well, now, remember, this bill makes no changes to any of our
existing laws or regulations. It makes no changes to the licenses and
permits required for a project or the criteria for obtaining those
licenses and permits. It makes no changes to any law or regulation that
could affect commercial fisheries or, for that matter, anything else.
It simply says that the agencies and jurisdictions involved with
these projects have to cooperate and coordinate and communicate with
each other, and it requires the science guiding these decisions to be
available to the public to review and scrutinize.
So why the amendment? Well, for one reason and one reason only, I
think, because for the last 8 years, we have had an administration that
was actively hostile to constructing new reservoirs. That
administration has used the fragmented nature of the approval process
as a way to delay projects indefinitely. That is what this proposal
corrects.
Mr. Lowenthal's amendment would allow any administration so inclined
to make a specious finding as an excuse to ignore this law. Project
applicants would not know from one election to the next whether their
millions of dollars of studies and investments would suddenly come to
naught, and projects already well along in the planning and approval
process could find their efforts coming to a screeching halt.
For our laws to work, they must be predictable and fair. Mr.
Lowenthal's amendment is a poison pill to render this law unpredictable
and capricious.
The irony is this: the gentleman's constituents in southern
California have the most to lose from his amendment because southern
California depends on surplus water from northern California. And let
me make this very clear to the gentleman and his constituents: northern
California has first claim on northern California water.
If we can't store the extra water in the north, there is no surplus
for the south, and the gentleman's constituents can look forward to
dead lawns and gardens, brown parks, empty swimming pools, astronomical
water and electricity prices, spiraling grocery prices, and a future
where they will have to ration and stretch every drop of water and
every watt of electricity in their parched and sweltering homes. They
might want to ask him about that some day.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
northern California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise in support of this amendment.
My colleague across the aisle just asked the rhetorical question: Why
is this amendment needed?
It is needed because fishing jobs matter. The people whom I represent
on the north coast of California and also other fishing communities up
and down the Pacific Coast, including Oregon and Washington, their jobs
matter, and their limited opportunity to have their interests
considered when a dam project is moving forward is what is shortened by
the streamlining in this bill.
Their interests are already subordinated oftentimes, but they get
subordinated even further by the streamlining in this case, which
places the Bureau of Reclamation, the proponent of the new dam, in
charge of the administrative record, which places the fish agencies--
which often advance the interests of protecting fisheries--in a
subordinate role to the Bureau of Reclamation that controls the
administrative record, which imposes shortened timelines to make it
even harder for their interests to be considered.
Fishing jobs matter. And the truth is, right now, in my district and
in many other fishing communities, people are hurting because they have
been damaged by poorly operated and poorly permitted dams.
Let's not make things worse. This amendment is absolutely necessary,
and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would first point out that commercial
fisheries are controlled and regulated by the Secretary of Commerce,
not the Secretary of the Interior, and yet it is the Secretary of the
Interior to whom the gentleman would give the power to ignore this
streamlining law and impose endless, repetitive, and duplicative delays
in the consideration of these projects.
I would again point out that all of the considerations that are given
to fisheries, that are given to environmental laws, that are given to
engineering laws, everything that goes into the planning process in our
dams under
[[Page H5091]]
our laws and regulations is fully respected under this measure.
All that it does is say that the agency, that the Bureau of
Reclamation, when an application is provided, will pull these agencies
together, and all of the jurisdictions and all of the affected parties
establish a timetable according to their best judgment of what is
necessary, have them talk with each other, and then stick to that plan.
That is what the bill does, and that is why it is so desperately
needed in a State that has not built a major reservoir of over a
million acre-fee of storage since the New Melones was completed in
1979.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters,
including one from the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, which is the largest organization of commercial fishing
families on the West Coast, collectively representing thousands of
family-wage jobs and the West Coast commercial fishing industry that
contributes billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, strongly opposing
this bill, H.R. 1654, and supporting the amendment.
Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Associations,
June 12, 2017.
Dear Representative: The Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) is the largest organization
of commercial fishing families on the West Coast,
representing the interests of hundreds of family-owned
commercial fishing operations who harvest and deliver fresh
seafood to American consumers and for export. Collectively,
we represent many thousands of family wage jobs and a West
Coast commercial fishing industry that contributes billions
of dollars to the U.S. economy.
On behalf of the hundreds of hard working commercial
fishermen we represent, we are OPPOSED to H.R. 1654 for many
reasons, among them the following:
While the concept of streamlining permitting for federal
water projects is attractive on its face, our primary problem
in the arid west is not a lack of water storage projects, but
lack of funds for maintaining and repairing the many existing
projects that are already in place. Hundreds of existing
water projects are badly in need of repair, with many
dangerously close to failing. And as we recently witnessed
with the catastrophic failure of the Oroville Dam, an
``expedited review process'' like what is envisioned in H.R.
1654 could lead to poor or rushed impacts analyses
potentially resulting in further catastrophe or economic
disruption. It is now apparent that the Oroville Dam's 2017
emergency spillway failure was predicted--but the warning
signs were ignored--in its expedited environmental impacts
review process.
H.R. 1654 is simply the wrong approach. It would undermine
existing laws protecting both the public and public resources
by making the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) the
lead agency for all environmental reviews, in effect leaving
Reclamation in control of the entire environmental review
process. However, Reclamation has neither the expertise nor
the capacity of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service to inform the development
of major infrastructure projects to reduce their impact on
valuable wildlife and fisheries. Under H.R. 1654, these
agencies would be stripped of their authority and duties to
oversee and authorize water storage projects, to the
detriment of the people of the West and the American
taxpayer.
H.R. 1654 also implements overly restricted and burdensome
project review timelines, including provisions that would
require expedited review under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)--timelines that may be inappropriate for
very complex projects like the damming of streams and rivers.
These fast-tracking provisions interfere with the ability of
agencies and the public to meaningfully analyze proposed
complex projects, and could also limit the public's ability
to weigh in on infrastructure developments that could affect
communities for decades. Further, the bill permits non-
federal public entities to contribute funds to expedite
project permitting, raising serious conflicts of interest
questions about the fairness and impartiality of the federal
review process.
H.R. 1654 also establishes perverse incentives for western
states to cede their independent authority. Under the new
regulatory scheme, state agencies could be compelled to
adhere to the bill's procedures, thereby requiring those
state agencies to cede control to Reclamation and comply with
its timelines. This weakens the essential and independent
role that states play in reviewing proposed water
infrastructure projects within their borders.
We sincerely request that you vote NO on H.R. 1654. This
bill will not solve the problems it purports to address, and
it would have widespread consequences far beyond water
deliveries and water storage, including adverse effects to
regional and local fishing industry economies and the jobs
and communities those economies support.
Sincerely,
Noah Oppenheim,
Executive Director.
____
American Rivers,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2017.
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members of the U.S. House Committee on Natural
Resources: I am writing on behalf of American Rivers and our
200,000 members to oppose H.R. 1654, the Water Supply
Permitting Coordination Act, which is before the Committee on
April 26, 2017. We understand that new surface storage
projects are a consideration as part of a multi-faceted
portfolio aimed at addressing long term drought in the
Western United States. We also share Congress' view that
long-term, balanced solutions to drought and water supply
security that support and protect local economies, the
viability of agriculture, municipal water supplies,
recreation, and the riparian environment are critical to the
future of Western communities. H.R. 1654, however, fails to
provide a long-term, balanced solution, and goes far beyond
the scope of authorities vested in the Bureau of Reclamation
(the ``Bureau'') while undermining the critical role other
federal agencies, tribes, and states play in the permitting
of water supply projects in the West. We remain concerned
about the potential harmful impacts to management authorities
designed to protect streams and conserve watersheds. In light
of these concerns, we ask you to oppose H.R. 1654.
This legislation amends the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. 371,
et seq., in a way that undermines the management authorities
of other federal agencies, tribes, and states. H.R. 1654
allows the Bureau to preempt state laws and procedural
requirements for agency decision-making by dictating
unreasonable deadlines. It also weakens authorities under
Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, as well as other
federal laws, by subordinating all other State and federal
agencies to the Bureau's sense of how much time those
administering agencies should have to do their jobs.
Specifically, H.R. 1654:
Designates the Bureau as the lead agency and allows the
Bureau to set the schedule for all federal authorizations,
including those issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA),
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), and other
federal authorizations, even where those authorizations have
been delegated or devolved to the states or Native American
tribes.
Forces all other federal, state, and tribal agencies to
comply with the Bureau's schedule and to defer to the
Bureau's proposed scope of environmental review.
Effectively waives the Endangered Species Act or the Clean
Water Act if a state, tribe, or federal agency cannot meet
the Bureau's schedule or misses a deadline. The Bureau and
the project applicant may simply proceed with the proposed
action and the authorization is waived. There are no similar
remedies or penalties if the Bureau or the project applicant
fails to meet a deadline, or if delay caused by Bureau or the
project applicant results in an agency missing a deadline.
The end result of this and the following provisions could be
that states and tribes may be forced to deny certification
for new projects in order to avoid potential legal liability.
It is important that federal natural resource agencies
retain the authority and responsibility to condition
operations of surface storage projects so as to protect
streams and other public resources. A key part of protecting
watersheds, especially in the arid West, is maintaining
healthy flows in streams. For years, American Rivers has
worked with the federal land management agencies, tribes,
states and other stakeholders to protect healthy river flows
on public lands. Federal land managers, states, tribes and
the public have an important role to play in protecting
streams--based on the Property Clause of the Constitution,
Section 505 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
and other authorities--and they also have a responsibility to
work with their stakeholders to do it right. Provisions of
H.R. 1654 would harm the ability of federal land managers,
states, and tribes to use these authorities to protect
streams, rivers, and vital fisheries.
We oppose H.R. 1654, and urge Congress to carefully
consider the impacts of the legislation on federal, tribal
and state authority before proceeding further and determine
if legislation is needed.
Sincerely,
Matthew Niemerski,
Director, Federal Policy,
American Rivers.
____
Golden Gate Salmon Association,
Petaluma, CA, June 12, 2017.
Re H.R. 1654 (McClintock)--OPPOSE.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: The
Golden Gate Salmon Association is a coalition of salmon
fishermen and women, both sport and commercial, and related
businesses. As a business-oriented advocacy organization
focused on conservation and restoration of Central Valley
salmon stocks, with members throughout California, we write
to offer our strong opposition to H.R. 1654 (McClintock), the
``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.'' This
legislation threatens tens of thousands of fishing related
jobs and could result in severe impacts to a salmon fishing
industry that is highly vulnerable today.
[[Page H5092]]
Surface Storage and California's Salmon Fishing Industry
Surface storage projects have been the leading cause of the
decline of California's historic salmon fishery. In the past
decade, surface storage projects contributed to the first
ever, historic closure of the California salmon fishery in
2008 and 2009. A fishery worth an estimated $1.4 billion in
annual economic activity to California in a normal season was
shattered. This had devastating impacts on the 23,000 men and
women whose livelihoods depend on the commercial and
recreational salmon fishery.
In significant part as a result of dam projects, the health
of our coastal fishing communities has decreased. We've seen
a decline in the number of commercial salmon boats registered
to fish from almost 5,000 in the late 1980's to just over
1,000 today. Once bustling salmon ports, like Fort Bragg and
Eureka are lined with crumbling docks and pier pilings. In
some places there aren't enough fish crossing the docks to
maintain basic infrastructure like boat repair yards, fuel
docks and ice making machines. Where once proud freshly
painted houses beamed pride of fisherman ownership, too many
are sadly in need of repair. Go to any California harbor with
commercial fishing activity and inspect the deck hardware and
rigging on boats and you'll see what deferred maintenance
looks like for people who struggle to keep a roof over their
family's heads and pay the bills.
Because of low populations of adult salmon in 2017, salmon
fishing for much of Northern California has been closed
entirely this year. For the remainder of the California
coast, the commercial fishing fleet has lost approximately
two thirds of their traditional fishing season. These low
population numbers are the result of the drought and the
impacts of existing surface storage projects.
Decision-makers should respond to this crisis by
strengthening efforts to restore salmon runs. However, H.R.
1654 could increase the impacts of dam projects on salmon,
with potentially devastating consequences.
Specific Concerns
This legislation threatens to weaken analysis and
permitting for surface storage projects, with significant
potential impacts on salmon. GGSA offers the following
specific concerns.
Interfering With The Use of the Best Available Science: The
bill would allow the Bureau of Reclamation to control the
administrative record used by all federal agencies in
reviewing surface storage projects. At best, the Bureau lacks
the environmental expertise of the regulatory agencies on a
range of issues, including salmon. In addition, as a
potential applicant for surface storage projects, the Bureau
would have a clear conflict of interest, were they to be
given control of the record used by all federal agencies.
Further, the Bureau has a record of asserting dubious
environmental benefits from surface storage projects and
working to suppress analysis by federal agencies. As a
result, it is highly inappropriate for the Bureau to be given
control of a single administrative record to be used by all
federal agencies.
Interfering with Agency Review: The bill would give the
Bureau authority to establish a binding schedule for all
federal agency environmental review and permitting. For the
same reasons cited above, this is inappropriate. In addition,
this requirement would produce unnecessary, costly and time
consuming litigation, in the likely event that a schedule
adopted by the Bureau does not allow adequate time for review
by regulatory agencies.
Undermining State Review of Projects: In cases where states
chose to opt in, the bill would give the Bureau control over
the administrative record and schedule for state agencies. In
such a case, the bill would allow the Bureau undue control
over state analysis and permitting. This is highly
inappropriate, given more than a century of traditional
federal deference to state law.
Surface Storage Bias: Surface storage construction and
operation is among the water management activities with the
most severe impacts on salmon and salmon rivers. This
legislation inappropriately restricts analysis for the most
environmentally destructive method of storing water and
generating new water supplies, but not for less destructive
activities.
For the above reasons, we urge you to oppose this damaging
and unnecessary bill.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
John McManus,
Executive Director.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, by that token, I will include in the
Record the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce as well as
the Family Farm Alliance and others in support of this bill and the
jobs that will expand as a result of its adoption.
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, June 20, 2017.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you to approve H.R. 1654, the
``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act,'' which would
streamline the permitting process for new surface water
storage projects. The Chamber may consider including votes
on, or in relation to, H.R. 1654 in our annual How They Voted
scorecard.
H.R. 1654 would establish the Bureau of Reclamation as the
lead agency for coordinating environmental reviews and
permitting new or expanded non-federal surface storage
facilities. The bill also would allow the Secretary of the
Interior to accept funds from non-federal public entities and
to use those funds to expedite the permitting process for
designated projects. This type of coordination and
streamlining is essential to the development and construction
of much-needed water storage projects.
The structure of H.R. 1654 tracks the permit streamlining
provisions contained in Title 41 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, which was passed during the 114th
Congress. The Chamber urges you to approve H.R. 1654.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley,
Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer.
____
Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, OR, March 8, 2017.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McClintock: On behalf of the Family Farm
Alliance (Alliance), we write to express our support for your
``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act''. This important
legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
coordinate Federal and State permitting processes related to
the construction of new surface water storage projects on
lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the Bureau
of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, and
for other purposes.
The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries
in 16 Western states. Several of our members are mutual ditch
and irrigation districts. The Alliance is focused on one
mission: To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable
irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.
The ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act'' provides a
critical first step towards addressing current regulatory and
bureaucratic challenges that many times will delay or even
halt the development of new water supply enhancement projects
in the Western United States. The recent drought has ramped
up much-needed Congressional interest to enact legislation
that will allow Western water providers to better manage and
prepare for future dry times. Now, the heaviest rain in a
decade has overwhelmed parts of the West Coast, underscoring
the critical importance of having modernized and enhanced
water storage infrastructure in place to optimize water
resources management for the future.
Family Farm Alliance members rely on the traditional water
and power infrastructure built over the last century to
deliver irrigation water supplies vital to their farming
operations. Our membership has been advocating for new water
storage facilities for over twenty years, and we have
provided specific recommendations to Congress and the White
House on how to streamline restrictive federal regulations to
help make these projects happen.
As you are aware, developing new water storage projects is
much easier said than done. For many reasons--political,
economic and social--the construction of traditional surface
water storage projects is undertaken on a much more limited
basis than in decades past. Even if federal authorization and
funding, or funding from non-federal sources, is secured for
a new storage project, the existing procedures for permitting
the development of additional water supplies can make project
approval incredibly burdensome.
By the time project applicants approach federal agencies
for permits to construct multimillion dollar projects they
have already invested extensive resources toward analyzing
project alternatives to determine which project is best
suited to their budgetary constraints. However, current
procedure dictates that federal agencies formulate another
list of project alternatives which the applicant must assess,
comparing potential impacts with the preferred alternative.
These alternatives often conflict with state law or are
simply not implementable in the first place yet valuable
resources are required to be expended to further study these
additional alternatives in the federal permitting process.
Thus, we strongly support your bill. We look forward to
working with you, the 115th Congress and other interested
parties to build a consensus for improving the federal
regulatory and permitting process. If we don't find a way to
restore water supply reliability for Western irrigated
agriculture through a combination of new water supply and
management infrastructure, other water supply enhancement
efforts and demand management--our country's ability to feed
and clothe itself and the world will be jeopardized.
This bill takes an important step towards addressing this
critical need. I encourage you or your staff to contact Dan
Keppen if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick O'Toole,
President.
Dan Keppen,
Executive Director.
[[Page H5093]]
____
Association of California
Water Agencies,
June 19, 2017.
Re Support for H.R. 1654.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to
support H.R. 1654, the ``Water Supply Permitting Coordination
Act''. ACWA's 450 public water agency members supply over 90
percent of the water delivered in California for residential,
agricultural, and industrial uses.
As demonstrated by California's recent historic drought, it
is important that Congress take actions now that help ensure
California has sufficient water supplies for the future. Had
the streamlining provisions contained in H.R. 1654 been in
effect prior to the drought, California's water
infrastructure and water supplies could have been improved to
help mitigate much of the current personal and economic
suffering that occurred.
Moreover, H.R. 1654 is consistent with policy principles
ACWA has formally adopted embracing environmental and
economic sustainability as co-equal priorities for water
management in California.
Thank you for this opportunity to express ACWA's support
for H.R. 1654.
Sincerely,
David Reynolds,
Director of Federal Relations.
____
Voith Hydro Inc.
York, PA, June 20, 2017.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McClintock: On behalf of Voith Hydro, I am
writing today to extend our strong support for H.R. 1654, the
Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. Voith Hydro is a
manufacturer of hydroelectric equipment and technology based
in York, Pennsylvania. Additionally, we have Voith Hydro
Services facilities located in Chattanooga, Tennessee and
Springfield, Oregon. Voith Hydro currently employees
approximately 680 workers across the United States. Water
storage issues are critical to our ability to provide both
the energy and jobs that sustain a nation.
As you are well aware, water provides multiple benefits to
communities across the country. Without an abundant supply of
water storage in the United States, hydropower production
cannot reach its full potential. These same communities have
been able to thrive in large part due to abundant water
supplies and the production of renewable hydropower,
especially in your home district in Northern California.
Increasing water storage throughout the country will allow
for better management during drought conditions, and thus
prevent power outages to communities reliant on
hydroelectricity.
Streamlining the permitting process to expand and develop
new water storage throughout the United States is critical to
increasing and upgrading our Country's infrastructure. I am
pleased to see that Congress continues to consider bills
targeted to improve the permitting processes and hope that
other infrastructure permitting streamlining continues,
especially as it concerns hydropower development.
I encourage the passage of the Water Supply Permitting Act
this week in the House of Representatives and look forward to
working with you on similar issues in the future. Thank you
for your leadership on water storage and other critical
issues.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Gallo,
President and CEO.
____
Municipal Water District
of Orange County,
Fountain Valley, CA, May 30, 2017.
Hon. Tom McClintock,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McClintock: The Municipal Water District
of Orange County (MWDOC) is pleased to support your measure,
H.R. 1654--``The Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.''
We applaud your efforts to streamline the permitting process
that relates to the construction of new surface water storage
projects on lands. This coordination is long overdue and will
ultimately benefit the entire state.
The rains this past winter emphasized the critical need
California has for surface water storage. We cannot let this
resource slip out to the ocean due to lack of places to put
it. Allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to be the coordinating
agency for projects on Interior or Department of Agriculture
lands will make the process more efficient and speed up the
process for critical water infrastructure projects in our
state.
The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), a
water agency serving the needs of more than two million
residents and 28 retail water agencies, voted unanimously to
support your legislation and to assist with its passage.
On behalf of the MWDOC Board of Directors, we are pleased
to support H.R. 1654 and sincerely thank you for your efforts
to address the ongoing water infrastructure needs in
California.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, lease
feel free to contact either Jim Barker, our advocate in
Washington, or MWDOC General Manager, Rob Hunter.
Sincerely,
Wayne S. Osborne,
Board President.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 232, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 318]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
[[Page H5094]]
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--20
Castro (TX)
Cummings
Gabbard
Gosar
Granger
Gutierrez
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Larsen (WA)
Lieu, Ted
Long
Meeks
Napolitano
Pelosi
Rogers (AL)
Scalise
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1612
Messrs. YODER, REED, BUDD, CURBELO of Florida, CORREA, PITTENGER,
MULLIN, WITTMAN, AND KATKO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ESPAILLAT, BLUMENAUER, and JOHNSON of Georgia changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Byrne). The question is on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Byrne, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1654) to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate Federal and State
permitting processes related to the construction of new surface water
storage projects on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture and to designate the
Bureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for permit processing, and for
other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 392, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Barton was allowed to speak out of order.)
Congressional Baseball Game
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, last Thursday evening, we
played the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. This is
normally the time when the losing manager has to congratulate the
winning manager. Over the last 10 years, I have become fairly
proficient at congratulating Mr. Doyle.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell a lot of jokes because, as
we all know, at the Republican practice the Wednesday morning before,
an individual opened fire on the Republican team and wounded the
majority whip, Mr. Scalise; both Capitol Police officers who were part
of Mr. Scalise's security detail; and two volunteers who were assisting
us in our practice. So I don't have a lot of jokes today, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to congratulate Mr. Doyle and his team. They played fair
and square. They were extremely gracious before the game. We had a
unity prayer. We had a unity introduction of the players. The night
before, Mr. Doyle and his team invited the Republican team, believe it
or not, to the Democratic political headquarters. I went with my two
sons. The food was great, and the fellowship was even better.
So I do sincerely want to congratulate him and his players for
playing the best game. They deserved to win.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Republican team. We had
approximately 25 of our Members at the practice. Every one of them
exhibited courage and composure. They all looked out for their fellow
teammates.
We had an equivalent number of staff and volunteers. We had two of
the best Capitol Hill police officers it is possible to have. They
risked their lives.
I want to say this, and then I will yield to my good friend, Mr.
Doyle.
The shooter that attacked the Republican baseball team, Mr. Speaker,
was attacking democracy. When we are at full strength on this floor,
there are 435 of us. Every one of us is a winner. We get here because
we have won an election. We get here because we have got the faith of
approximately 600,000 or 700,000 people who are depending on us to be
their voice for democracy. We argue. We debate. But as I said in one of
my interviews, before our names is United States Representative.
United.
Last Thursday, at the baseball game, we were united. I could not be
prouder of being a Member of this body, Mr. Speaker. I could not be
prouder of the Republican team, including our MVP, Ron DeSantis; our
honorary MVP, Steve Scalise; and every member of the Republican team.
Would the members of the Republican team stand and let's acknowledge
their heroism.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael
F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
This is different from the other years that we have stood up here.
This trophy isn't for either team. This trophy is for Steve.
I just want you all to know that when we got the news at our baseball
practice about what was going on, the only thing we could think about
is that we are a family. When we stood in the dugout and prayed that
you were safe and that no one was hurt, we weren't thinking about
Democrats and Republicans. We were thinking about our fellow Members.
I was thinking about your son, Jack, and all the fun times I have had
kidding him. I was thinking about Cedric Richmond's 3-year-old son, who
was with us, and what would have happened if that shooter had come over
to our dugout.
If there is a silver lining to that terrible day, it was reflected in
the outpouring of people who showed up at our game. We normally get a
crowd of 9,000 to 10,000. We had 25,000 people come to that game.
We normally raise about $500,000 for the three charities that the
game supports. I have a check here that says we raised $1.5 million,
but that is not correct. It is $1.7 million. Some worthwhile charities
are going to get a check they weren't expecting.
I want to reiterate what you said about our Capitol Police. To have
someone shooting bullets at you, that is terrifying enough. To make the
decision to put yourself out there and charge at that shooter to make
sure that there wasn't a massacre takes a special kind of person.
To see Crystal throw that ball out last night at the women's softball
game brought a lot of joy to my heart. We owe a real debt of gratitude
to the Capitol Police who protect us on these grounds.
I want Joe to know that we continue to think about all of you. You
are in our prayers, you are in our thoughts. Something terrible
happened. For many of you, it might take days before it hits you. I
would encourage anyone who is feeling that to talk to someone. Don't be
bashful about that. This was a traumatic experience for your team,
especially, but I want you to know that you are in our hearts and in
our prayers.
As we said before, Joe and I are going to walk this trophy over to
Steve's office. When the hospital gives us clearance, we are going to
go over to the hospital and present it to Steve personally. This is for
him right now. We want him to know that the entire Congress thinks
about him every day, prays for him and his family, and we hope to get
him back here on the House floor as soon as possible.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment
to the amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
[[Page H5095]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 180, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 319]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--180
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Cummings
Doggett
Gabbard
Gosar
Granger
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Larsen (WA)
Lieu, Ted
Long
Meeks
Napolitano
Pelosi
Rogers (AL)
Scalise
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1632
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 319 (passage of H.R. 1654),
I did not cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
on this vote.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
318 and No. 319 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Lowenthal Amendment.
I would have voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 1654--Water
Supply Permitting Coordination Act.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal conflict, I was unable to
make votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
No. 318 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 319.
____________________