[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 104 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4172-S4176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. PORTMAN:
S. 1925. A bill to authorize State opioid response grants, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I am here to continue the important
conversation we had on this floor about the ongoing addiction crisis we
face in this country. Over the past 2 years, I have come to the floor
57 times to talk about addiction, and usually it has been about opioids
and the impact opioids are having--tearing our families apart,
devastating our communities. There is certainly an opioid epidemic in
this country with prescription drugs, fentanyl, heroin--it is true--but
we also have to focus on the fact that we have a broader problem. That
is what I am going to talk about today, along with what we can do about
it.
Congress has done a lot in the last several years. When looking at
what was proposed and what was passed, we put new policies in place at
the Federal level to promote better prevention, better treatment
programs, and better long-term recovery. We passed legislation to stop
some of these deadly drugs from coming into our country. That has
helped somewhat. Those legislative initiatives, such as the CARA Act,
the 21st Century Cures Act, and the STOP Act, are starting to work.
Over $3 billion of additional funds has been appropriated by this
Congress just in the last 3 years alone to ensure that we have the
ability to push back against this epidemic. In my home State of Ohio--
one of the States hardest hit by this epidemic--we received nearly $140
million from the CARA and Cures grants. It is going toward stuff that
is working--evidence-based prevention, innovative approaches to
treatment and getting people into treatment, and closing some of the
gaps in the continuum of prevention, treatment, and recovery. A lot of
people were falling between the cracks. Closing those gaps has a made a
big difference in my State. We also equipped our first responders with
what they need and the training they need to help push back.
The good news is, these programs are starting to work. Drug overdose
deaths are still way too high, but for the first time in 8 years--8
years of increased overdose deaths every year--we are seeing a
reduction in overdose deaths.
In my own State of Ohio, we have seen significant progress. We have
had a 21-percent drop in our overdose deaths finally after 8 years of
increases. This was the biggest drop in the Nation from July 2017 to
June of 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control National
Center of Health Statistics. Nationally, again after 8 years of annual
increased deaths, we have seen a leveling out--in fact, a very modest
downturn. Between 2017 and 2018, overdose deaths fell from 73,000 to
71,000. In all, the overdose rate dropped in 21 States. Overall, there
has been only about a 1-percent drop, so it is very modest but a lot
better than the alternative we have seen for 8 years, which is
increased deaths.
As we begin to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic, I am convinced
that we would be doing even better if not for the influx of fentanyl.
About 4 or 5 years ago, fentanyl came to our country in a big way--
almost entirely from China and almost always through our own U.S.
Postal Service, believe it or not--and it has caused all kinds of
havoc. It is the deadliest of all the drugs. When you look at overdose
deaths, the primary cause now is fentanyl. It is a synthetic drug that
is 50 times more powerful than heroin.
We are beginning to push back again, including with our STOP Act,
which has now been passed, which requires the post office to begin
screening and stopping some of these packages from coming in. We will
do a better job in working with China. We have commitments from them,
and we hope they will follow through on them.
Even as this limited progress is being made on the opioid front, we
have a new, growing danger. I have heard this over the past few years
from law enforcement and from providers--from people on the frontlines
of the drug epidemic. They are seeing a resurgence of what are called
psychostimulants. Mostly it is pure, powerful methamphetamine from
Mexico--crystal meth.
In the last couple of months, I have heard about this from the people
in the trenches all over Ohio. I have talked to community leaders in
Knox County; treatment providers in Southeast Ohio; service providers
in Columbus; the ADAMHS Board in Adams, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties;
the leadership of
[[Page S4173]]
the Hamilton County Heroin Coalition; and community leaders and law
enforcement in Butler County and the Dayton area just last week. From
all over the State, they all tell me the same thing: We are making some
progress now on heroin, and that is good. We are making limited
progress on keeping the fentanyl out. But we are spinning our wheels on
combating particularly crystal meth, and they are also seeing a
resurgence of cocaine--both of which are stimulants, and both of which
are causing havoc in these communities, in part because, as a
psychostimulant, it leads to more violent behavior.
They are having a devastating impact in my State. According to a 2018
report from Ohio University, these psychostimulants--including meth--
were found in just nine overdose deaths in 2010. That number rose to
556 overdose deaths in 2017, which is the most recent data we have.
That is an increase of 6,000 percent. That same year, Ohio had more
than 1,500 people die of cocaine overdose, which is an almost 140-
percent increase from the year before.
This problem isn't isolated to Ohio. According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, deaths involving cocaine, crystal meth,
and other psychostimulants have increased nationwide. In the more than
70,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, more than 23,000 or nearly one-
third involved cocaine, meth, or both. Just from 2016 to 2017, in that
1 year, death rates involving cocaine and crystal meth increased by
approximately 33 percent. Increases occurred across all demographic
groups and in all ZIP Codes.
In the case of meth in particular, usage rates have gone up as opioid
rates have gone down. I am told by experts that this is for a few
reasons. Some meth users initially turned to this drug to manage the
heavy crashes that followed prolonged usage of opioids--heroin,
fentanyl, and other opioids--and then they became just as addicted to
meth as they had been to opioids. Others turns to meth because the drug
is stronger and cheaper than other options.
By the way, the days of home chemists and one-pot meth labs in
America are largely gone. You probably can remember, 5, 10, 15 years
ago, the meth labs in your community. You are not hearing about those
now. That is the good thing, but the bad thing is that you are not
hearing about them because the stuff coming from Mexico is more
powerful and less expensive. The super-labs in Mexico run by the drug
cartels are mass-producing this meth. It is powerful, deadly, and low
cost. I am told by law enforcement in Columbus, OH, that crystal meth
now costs less than marijuana on the streets of Columbus.
Most of this pure crystal meth enters the United States from Mexico
in bulk at ports of entry along our southwest border, often hidden in
cars and trucks. Our Customs and Border Protection officers, who are
already stretched thin by the ongoing migration crisis, don't have the
resources to identify these smuggled shipments. The INTERDICT Act,
which we passed here, is beginning to help by providing some
technology, but, frankly, we need research on better technology, and we
need to provide more funding to ensure we can stop this deadly
substance by identifying it at the border to keep it from coming in.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of
methamphetamine at our ports of entry has soared from about 14,000
pounds in 2012 to 56,000 pounds in 2018. We have also seen a 38-percent
increase in methamphetamine trafficking along the southern border just
in the 1 year from 2017 to 2018. One troubling measurement is that the
number of crystal meth submissions to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Investigation lab rose from 2,000 in 2015 to over 12,000 in 2018. That
is a 500-percent increase in my home State. This is an indication of
how much of this is being detained, being found by law enforcement and
taken to these labs.
As I heard from folks all across Ohio, we are also seeing meth laced
with other drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, and sometimes cocaine. I
am told that sometimes the cartels mix these drugs into methamphetamine
to lower the cost of the final product, meaning that the users may be
consuming dangerous opioids without realizing it. Other traffickers do
so because they know that fentanyl is incredibly addictive. You may
think it is one thing, but it is really another. Any street drug you
use is potentially deadly--remember that.
We still don't have the full picture of how these drugs are being
mixed together and sold for consumption. Over the past 2 years, I have
seen more reports of individuals in Ohio who used cocaine that, unknown
to them, had been mixed with fentanyl. In the last month alone, at
least 49 Ohioans in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, were killed by that
deadly combination. It has been hitting our African-American
communities particularly hard.
Again, this highlights how the drug cartels sometimes try to hook
users by cutting stimulants with addictive, deadly fentanyl, often with
lethal outcomes.
The bottom line is, we have to address the broader issue of
addiction, not just the issue of individual drugs. We know that crystal
meth and cocaine are increasing pretty dramatically. That is why we
have to continue our fight against opioid use but also provide more
flexibility to our communities. As a result, today I am introducing new
legislation designed to address the resurgence of crystal meth and
cocaine into our communities.
To date, the grants provided by the 21st Century Cures Act--these are
grants that go directly back to the States, and the States determine
how they are used in local communities. These are called State opioid
response grants. They have been used to increase access to naloxone--a
miracle drug that reverses the overdose. They have also been used for
longer term addiction treatment and support services for opioids.
For all the good they have done, these grants can't be used
effectively to combat the drug crisis beyond opioids, which ignores the
new on-the-ground reality of addiction in my State and many others. So
the legislation I am introducing today will make a simple change to
existing law. It will allow the State opioid response grants to be more
flexible so they can be used for whatever the drug addiction problem is
on the ground, which will be a little different for every State and,
for that matter, every community. In particular, dollars would be able
to be used in programs focused on methamphetamine and cocaine treatment
and recovery.
We know these existing funds are making a difference. We have to be
sure and keep this program going. That is why my legislation will also
reauthorize the State opioid response grants program with this
flexibility but reauthorize it for 5 years, providing $500 million
annually to ensure there is stable funding.
A stable funding stream to these States is absolutely essential to
having the predictability and the certainty we need to continue to make
progress and to avoid these new drugs coming in and creating more
devastation in our communities. It is a simple, commonsense change that
will allow State and local organizations the flexibility they need to
fight what is quickly becoming a two-front war on addiction.
The fact that we are continuing to see these new types of drugs pop
up in Ohio and around the country highlights the reality that this is a
fight against addiction. Addiction is a disease. Again, this Congress
has done an unprecedented amount of work in this area in the last few
years, and I commend us for that, but we have to do more. We have to
provide this flexibility. We have to be sure we are focusing on the
fight against addiction, not just on individual drugs.
While I am encouraged by the welcomed progress in preventing opioid
overdose deaths, we cannot rest on our laurels. The cartels continue to
pump new combinations of opioids and stimulants into vulnerable
communities, hooking individuals on yet another toxic drug and
perpetrating this cycle of addiction. Let's keep our unprecedented
bipartisan efforts going in this body. Let's continue to partner with
allies, local government and State governments, and with our
nonprofits. Let's make sure the resources are there to continue to save
lives and restore communities.
______
By Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. McSally, and Ms.
Sinema):
[[Page S4174]]
S. 1932. A bill to support water infrastructure in Reclamation
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources .
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
Drought Resiliency and Water Supply Improvement Act, which Senator Cory
Gardner (R-CO) introduced today. I am the lead Democratic sponsor on
the bill, and Senators Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
are also original cosponsors.
Drought--increasingly severe and prolonged drought--is a stark
reality for California and the West. Climate change presents a triple
threat to our water supply:
Higher temperatures causing a dwindling snowpack, increased
evaporation and other effects that will reduce our natural storage and
runoff. This could decrease flow in the Colorado River by 20% or more
by mid-century and as much as 40% by the end of the century.
Longer and more severe droughts, including perhaps as much as an 80%
chance of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration in the Colorado
Basin during this century.
Although this is more uncertain, the possibility of reduced overall
precipitation, perhaps 10-15% less in California's Sierra Nevada
mountains within the next 20-30 years.
We must respond to this challenge. The bill we are introducing today
does so in three fundamental ways:
It significantly increases funding for an ``all-of-the above''
solution to improve our water supply, including surface and groundwater
storage, conveyance, water recycling and desalination;
It reforms the Bureau of Reclamation's outdated project delivery
system to more quickly approve and more cost-effectively fund new
projects; and
It significantly invests not only in water supply projects, but also
in environmental restoration to help imperiled species adapt to climate
change as well.
Climate Change and Drought: I would like to say more about the
effects of climate change on two critical areas for California: the
Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Colorado River Basin.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists project that climate
change will cause a 54 percent drop in the Sierras' snowpack within the
next 20 to 40 years and a 79 percent drop by the end of the century.
This change alone could be devastating for California, because we
absolutely depend on this snowpack. The Sierra snowpack provides 30% of
our water supply and is our biggest reservoir. We need to start now to
provide substitute ways for storing precipitation in the Sierras,
whether through surface storage, groundwater storage, or improved
infrastructure to transport floodwaters to the best recharge areas.
This enhanced storage in its many forms will be helpful not only for
water users but also to maintain enough cold water for salmon. Cold
water reserves are critical to prevent salmon runs from being wiped out
during years of devastating droughts.
The outlook for the Colorado Basin is perhaps even more challenging.
The Colorado River provides a critical part of the water supply for 19
million people in southern California, but that water supply is
diminishing. Already in 2019 the water demands on the Colorado River
exceed average inflows to the river by 1.2 million to 1.5 million acre
feet each year.
That is a huge gap, and the Drought Contingency Plan that was just
negotiated among the 7 Colorado River Basin states represents just the
beginning of efforts needed to close even the existing gap. With
climate change, far more needs to be done, especially with warmer
temperatures and greatly increased evaporation in the Basin and with
the considerable odds of a megadrought of 20 to 50 years' duration.
The bill we are introducing today provides the Colorado River Basin
States with the tools to begin investing in a wide range of water
supply projects to meet this challenge. I believe this bill will be
critical for helping reach agreement in the next round of negotiations
for Colorado River drought contingency plans due to be completed by
2026.
Funding Authorizations in the Bill: In response to the water supply
challenges presented by climate change, the bill we are introducing
today significantly increases funding authorizations for a wide variety
of water supply and environmental restoration projects.
The proposed legislation builds on and doubles the 5-year funding
authorizations in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Act. The bill authorizes the following funding over the
next 5 years:
$670 million for surface and groundwater storage projects, and
supporting conveyance;
$100 million for water recycling projects; and
$60 million for desalination projects.
In addition, the bill authorizes $140 million for environmental
restoration and compliance projects. These projects include forest,
meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits and
projects to help restore threatened and endangered species affected by
Bureau of Reclamation water projects.
Low-Interest Loans for Water Supply Projects: The bill creates a new
loan program at 30-year Treasury rates (currently about 2.6%) for water
supply projects known as the Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (RIFIA). The loans would use existing criteria under the
successful WIFIA program (the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act).
The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has approved loans of
$2.3 billion for WIFIA in fiscal year 2018 backed by appropriations of
just over 1% of that amount or $25 million in budget authority. OMB was
able to approve loans backed by just 1% of the loan amount because
there is a virtually non-existent default rate for water projects. Only
4 in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study
conducted by the Fitch credit rating agency.
Given OMB's experience that Federal outlays need only cover 1% of the
loan cost for water projects, the $125 million in authorized Federal
spending in the draft bill likely could support $12.5 billion in water
project lending authority.
Needless to say, $12.5 billion is a meaningful amount of Federal low-
interest lending assistance for new water supply projects. And, because
RIFIA is limited to no more than 49 percent of total project costs,
that same $125 million in RIFIA budget authority will support no less
than $25.5 billion in new water infrastructure investments throughout
the west.
Need to Improve Reclamation's Project Delivery System: The bill not
only increases funding for drought resiliency projects, it expedites
their approvals and assists them more cost-effectively, stretching
taxpayer dollars further.
The traditional Bureau of Reclamation model for approving and funding
new water supply projects has involved the following:
Reclamation studies new projects in detail, which can take a decade
or more for major projects:
Once Reclamation's studies are complete, Congress authorizes projects
individually, which can take another 3-5 years or more in many cases;
and
Congress then funds 100% of the project construction cost over many
years of incremental appropriations, with project sponsors paying back
the federal government over 50 years at little to no interest.
One can quickly see that this model can end up taking decades to
construct significant new water supply projects. This is especially the
case given the limitations of Federal budgets and the increasing cost
of major projects in recent years. Given the tremendous challenge posed
by climate change to Western water supply, we need a nimbler and more
responsive model.
Mike Connor, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior during the Obama
Administration, testified in support of a new model during an October
8, 2015 hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Deputy Secretary Connor stated:
The traditional Reclamation business model, in which
feasibility studies, consistent with the 1983 Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Development, are
first authorized, funded, and submitted to Congress, and then
construction is authorized and funded, does not always
address the needs of project sponsors at the State and local
levels. Moreover, given budget limitations and the
availability of other available financing mechanisms, the
[[Page S4175]]
historic federal role in financing water storage projects
through the Bureau of Reclamation must be revisited with a
greater emphasis on non-federal financing.
Changes to Traditional Model: In response to the concerns articulated
by Deputy Secretary Connor and others, the bill we are introducing
today, building on the WIIN Act, makes five significant changes to the
traditional Reclamation model. These changes expedite project approvals
and make more cost-effective use of available federal funding.
1) Congressional authorization no longer required:
First, the bill eliminates the need for Congress to authorize
individual projects. It can take 3-5 years for projects to get
legislatively approved or longer. In fact, zero new water recycling
projects have been authorized since 2009 due to the Federal earmark
ban.
While Congressional authorizations are no longer required, Congress
retains full veto authority over which projects get built through the
appropriations process. Unless Congress approves funding for the study
and construction of individual projects, Reclamation cannot proceed
with them.
The advantage of the appropriations process as an alternative
mechanism for Congressional approval is that it occurs every year. So
rather than waiting 3-5 years or longer for Congressional approval
under the traditional model, Congress decides each year whether or not
to fund proposed projects.
2) Non-Federal funding is required upfront:
Second, the bill no longer requires 100% federal funding upfront as
was necessary under the traditional Reclamation model. Instead, the
bill allows a maximum of 50% Federal funding for Federally-owned
projects, and a maximum of 25% federal funding for non-federal projects
that are built by States, water districts, or Indian tribes.
Federal dollars can be stretched further by the partnerships with
States and water districts that will be fostered under the bill. For
example, the proposed expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in California
would be funded 50% by the State of California, which has already
conditionally awarded funding, in addition to potentially 10-25% by the
federal government and the remaining 25-40% by water users.
Multi-partner projects like the Los Vaqueros expansion will
frequently have multiple benefits. For example, much of the State and
Federal funding for the Los Vaqueros expansion would go to augment the
water supply of wildlife refuges that provide essential water for
migratory birds on the Pacific flyway. These benefits would complement
the project's water supply benefits for many Bay Area water districts.
3) Feasibility studies are expedited:
Third, for the non-Federal projects authorized by the bill, the
federal study process would be significantly expedited, and it does so
without waiving any environmental protection requirements. The bill
makes clear that federal environmental laws must be fully and strictly
followed.
Existing law, however, already addresses study procedures in parallel
circumstances when the nonfederal entities are building a project and
the federal government is only responsible for a minority of the
project cost, no more than 25%. In these circumstances, the Federal
government can and should expeditiously approve feasibility and other
preliminary studies. There is existing precedent for such projects in
the guidelines adopted by the Bureau of Reclamation for feasibility
studies for water recycling projects under the Title XVI program. Like
all the non-federal projects in this bill, these water recycling
projects are built by non-federal entities with a maximum 25% federal
cost-share.
The bill we are introducing today would direct Reclamation to model
its feasibility study standards for all non-federal projects based on
the Title XVI example. This will reduce delays in project approval and
get these projects built faster.
4) The new loan program is cost-effective:
Fourth, the low-interest loan program created by the bill is an
exceptionally cost-effective program. As I mentioned above, OMB has
validated that low-interest water project loans need to be backed by
Federal appropriations totaling only 1% of the project loan amount.
Federal funding of 1% of the loan amount will typically return 10-25%
savings in the repayment cost of the loans for the water districts
funding the projects. The total savings can be about 10% for AAA rated
districts, and 20-25% for AA-rated districts.
For example, the water users who are supporting the proposed Sites
Reservoir in northern California have estimated that the loans
authorized by this bill would allow them to pay only $512/acre-foot for
water delivered by the project instead of $682/acre-foot. This is a 25%
reduction in their costs.
Thus, the Federal government can provide a loan at 1% of the loan
amount and save the project sponsors 10-25% of the project cost. That
is an exceptionally cost-effective federal investment.
There are at least three significant reasons that the loans are so
beneficial for the project sponsors:
The sponsors pay about a 2.6% interest rate on their loans based on
today's rates, versus 4% or greater rates for the alternative of
municipal bond financing.
The districts would not need to start loan repayments until 5 years
after substantial completion of the project, a substantial cost saver.
Loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service
costs.
Significantly, the loans include all the taxpayer protections from
the successful WIFIA and TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act) programs. In particular, the RIFIA loans would be
limited to 49% of the project cost, and the federal loans would have
senior status in the event of any default. These provisions ensure the
taxpayer won't be harmed in any default where the project retains at
least 50% of its value, which is extremely likely for ratepayer backed
water supply projects.
5) Federal grants and loans work together:
Fifth, the combination of low-interest loans and Federal grants of up
to 25% of project costs for non-Federal projects can allow water users
to make up the difference where the Federal government is no longer
funding 100% of project costs up front. Many rural communities, and in
particular agricultural communities, are not able to pay 100% of the
cost of new water supply projects.
Under the bill we are introducing today, these communities will still
have to provide a significant cost-share for improving their water
supplies, and new water projects will have to be cost-effective enough
to justify that investment. However, the Federal government can help
build the best and most effective projects in increasing drought
resiliency by providing assistance through both grants and loans.
Environmental Benefits: The longer and more severe droughts coming
with climate change will adversely affect not just farms and cities,
but also the natural environment. The bill includes provisions to
improve species' drought resiliency as well.
The significant funding authorization of $140 million for
environmental restoration can be used to benefit many different
species, including fish, migratory birds, and forest species. Some of
the authorized uses of this funding include:
Improved habitat for salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species
adversely affected by the Bureau of Reclamation's water projects;
Additional water for wildlife refuges hosting migratory birds along
the Pacific flyway;
Improved stream gauges, monitoring and science to better understand
how to restore species and to operate Reclamation water projects with
reduced environmental impacts;
Assistance in implementing water-related settlements with State
agencies and state water quality laws; and
Forest, meadow and watershed restoration efforts that improve the
quality, timing, or other attributes of runoff to reservoirs or
groundwater storage facilities.
I want to say a little more about the new authorization for forest,
meadow and watershed restoration projects with water benefits. Wildfire
and drought are two of our biggest challenges in California, and we
need new tools to respond to them.
There are national forest lands and meadows upstream of many
reservoirs
[[Page S4176]]
in California that are at serious risk of catastrophic fire.
If treatments of these lands restore healthier ecological conditions,
it will improve water runoff into the downstream reservoirs and reduce
the risk of large sedimentation dumps into the reservoirs from
catastrophic fires.
Restoration of these lands may not be a top priority for the Forest
Service because that agency's mission does not emphasize water
benefits.
The bill being introduced today would authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to contribute a portion of the cost of these projects. The
new funding source will in turn make these multi-benefit projects more
likely to be implemented.
I believe it is critical that we develop new tools like this one for
reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and improving our drought
resiliency.
I and the other cosponsors of today's bill are also looking for
additional ways to increase the natural environment's resiliency to
droughts in our states. We have circulated language for discussion and
potential inclusion in the bill that would provide additional funding
for ``natural water storage projects.''
These projects would help restore stream and river channels with
natural materials like wetlands. Like many other projects prioritized
by the bill, these projects could have multiple benefits, including
increased groundwater recharge, improved flood protection, and
increased floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other species.
We look forward to receiving comments on ways to prioritize multi-
benefit projects like natural water storage projects as we move forward
with the bill.
In addition, the bill makes clear that it must be implemented
consistently with all federal environmental laws, including the
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Clean Water Act and all other environmental laws. All applicable state
laws must also be followed.
Offsets: Finally, the bill includes two provisions offsetting the new
spending authorizations within it:
It extends the existing WIIN Act provisions allowing water districts
to prepay their outstanding capital debts and convert to indefinite
length water supply contracts. These provisions are expected to bring
in additional revenue within the 10-year scoring window.
It sets up a process to deauthorize inactive water recycling project
authorizations.
Conclusion: California is home to more than 40 million people, but
our major state-wide water infrastructure hasn't significantly changed
in the past 50 years, when we had only 16 million people.
We must modernize the system or we risk becoming a desert state.
I believe that this bill will place California on a long-term path to
drought resiliency. Critically, this means putting in place
infrastructure to allow our cities, our farmers, and our natural
communities to withstand the severe droughts that we are projected to
face due to climate change.
I hope my Western colleagues will join me and the others who have
introduced this bill, because drought is a serious threat for all of
our states. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
____________________