[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16666-16667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern and the 
concerns of my constituents regarding Section 204 of the FY 2001 Energy 
and Water Appropriations legislation now before us, the provision which 
affects the conservation of the silvery minnow. News of the showdown 
between federal and state agencies over the conservation of this fish 
on the Rio Grande has reached my state. My constituents are now 
concerned, Mr. President, about the impact this language will have on 
the future survival of this species, as well as the precedent that 
language of this type will have on the implementation of the Endangered 
Species Act in Wisconsin and across the country. They are so concerned, 
that on July 22, 2000 a constituent drove from Madison to a fair in 
Waukesha to speak to me about this matter and missed me by minutes. 
When constituents are that concerned, I have to bring it to the 
attention of other members of this body.
  The White House on Friday threatened to veto the Energy and Water 
Development bill, in part because of this provision that could prevent 
protection of the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.
  I am concerned, Mr. President, that we would be seeking to take this 
action in this bill because, while we are here in Washington, in 
Albuquerque, federal, state, and environmental lawyers are continuing a 
federal court-ordered mediation. This mediation is seeking something 
much more important than legislative ink on the page, Mr. President, 
rather it seeks river water for the minnow before its critical habitat 
runs dry--unfortunately it could run dry potentially as soon as next 
week.
  The Department of Interior, through its U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and Bureau of Reclamation, is trying to keep the minnow from 
oblivion.
  Let me explain my concerns, Mr. President. They are concerned that 
Section 204 would prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from using any 
funds to open irrigation dams. It is the opening of those dams that 
would provide direct river flow to sustain the minnow. I understand 
that earlier this month, the Bureau of Reclamation caused concern 
within the irrigation district with its legal opinion that the 
government owns the dams.
  I understand that legal ownership and contractual and other water 
rights issues in the West are extremely contentious. I am grateful to 
come from a riparian water rights state, and to avoid these kinds of 
disputes in Wisconsin. But, I'll tell you, Mr. President, Wisconsinites 
expect that Congress will

[[Page 16667]]

stay out of this legal wrangling when a species' survival is at stake.
  These dams help divert the flow of the river to some 10,000 farmers 
of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. The conservancy district 
holds long-standing rights to the water under state law, which does not 
recognize in-stream flow for fish as a beneficial use. But the Bureau 
of Reclamation has told the conservancy district that the dams must be 
operated so an in-stream flow of at least 300 cubic feet per second can 
sustain a ``last stand'' surviving population of minnows downstream.
  The White House has said ``the Administration strongly objects to 
provisions included in the Senate bill'' that would ``severly 
constrain'' the government's efforts to protect and sustain the minnow. 
Moreover the Office of Management and Budget has said that ``adequate 
flows'' must be ensured on the Rio Grande and warned that a ``failure 
to protect the minnow this year could lead to its extinction.''
  Mr. President, my constituents want the water managers and 
environmentalists to continue the court ordered mediation they have 
begun. The parties to the mediation are environmental groups; the 
conservancy district; the Bureau of Reclamation; the state water 
engineer; and the city of Albuquerque.
  The Rio Grande silvery minnow occurs only in the middle Rio Grande. 
Threats to the species include dewatering, channelization and 
regulation of river flow to provide water for irrigation; diminished 
water quality caused by municipal, industrial, and agricultural 
discharges; and competition or predation by introduced non-native fish 
species. Currently, the species occupies about five percent of its 
known historic range.
  This species was historically one of the most abundant and widespread 
fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring from New Mexico, to the Gulf 
of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos River, a major tributary of 
the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, New Mexico, downstream to its 
confluence with the Rio Grande in south Texas. It is now completely 
extinct in the Pecos River and its numbers have severely declined 
within the Rio Grande.
  Decline of the species in the Rio Grande probably began as early as 
the beginning of the 20th century when water manipulation began along 
the Rio Grande. Elephant Butte was the first of five major dams 
constructed within the silvery minnow's habitat. These dams allow the 
flow of the river to be manipulated and diverted for the benefit of 
agriculture. As times this manipulation resulted in the dewatering of 
some river reaches and elimination of all fish. Concurrent with 
construction of these dams, there was an increase in the abundance of 
non-native and exotic fish species, as these species were stocked into 
the reservoirs created by the dams. Once established, these species 
often out competed the native fish.
  The only existing population of minnow continues to be threatened by 
annual dewatering of a large percentage of its habiat. My constituents 
want to be assured that their future survival is not threatened by 
legislative action. That is why I have strong concerns about this 
provision and would like to see that it is removed from the bill.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________