[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12736-12742]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           NATURAL RESOURCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the previous 
speaker and her unrelenting attack against the Salvation Army. She 
apparently got the merits for this attack from one newspaper article. I 
have heard the gentlewoman previously speak from here. I think she is 
well-educated. She comes generally with numerous sources when she 
speaks. That is why I am very surprised that she takes one newspaper 
article and launches an attack against the Salvation Army, which I 
would like to say to the gentlewoman has helped millions and millions 
of people throughout the history of this country. I think such an 
attack is unfounded, and I think you should hear the other side of the 
story.
  I would advise the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia to 
immediately go to a TV, turn on CNN on the half-hour, or some other 
broadcast, and she will find that the other side of the story has come 
out. In fact, I just spent some time, I was not looking for the story, 
I was grabbing a snack and watching the other side of the story being 
played out, and once the gentlewoman sees that, she will moderate the 
comments against the Salvation Army.
  I do not disagree with her point, I want to make this clear to the 
gentlewoman. I do not think any kind of secret deal should be made. But 
I do not think the Salvation Army went out and made a secret deal to 
discriminate against people, contrary to the laws of the United States. 
And I think that in all fairness to the Salvation Army, as well as the 
President of the United States, that both sides of the story should be 
read, both sides of the story should be analyzed, and then the 
concluding remarks that the gentlewoman has could then be made on the 
House floor.
  Now, that is not the purpose of my comments this evening. My real 
focus this evening is on natural resources. But before we go to natural 
resources, I want to spend a couple of moments also on the comments of 
another speaker.
  Unfortunately, as my colleagues know, we have one speaker at a time. 
We only have one speaker at a time that gets the opportunity up here. 
So I have heard some of these, and I heard another attack regarding the 
energy situation in the State of California. So I want to reiterate a 
couple of points that I think are important for the energy situation 
that we have in California.
  Remember that the energy crisis that exists in California does not 
exist in 50 States. In fact, in 49 of the 50 States, they are not 
having the kind of problems that California is having. In other words, 
the problems in California are as a result of a combination of a number 
of different factors that have come into play, not the least of which 
is that the State of California has refused to help itself, has refused 
to help itself, by allowing power plants to be built over the last 10 
years, by allowing natural gas transmission lines to go into their 
State, by allowing electrical transmission lines to go into their 
State.
  California has paid a very dear price. Of all 50 States out there, of 
all 50 States, California has been the lead State opposing any kind of 
energy transmission in their State, opposing power plants. They are the 
ones where the old saying, ``Not in my backyard,'' it is out of that 
State that that came.
  So I do not think a speaker, I do not think one should stand up here 
and make California look like some poor innocent victim in the Western 
United States who somehow is picked out of 50 States and is the only 
State in the kind of crisis they are in, and then have one stand up 
here and accuse the power companies of theft. I do not know whether 
there has been theft or not, but let me tell you, the problem is much 
broader than a power company like Duke Energy.
  The problem that you have got out there is you have to face a couple 
realities. Number one, conservation is absolutely critical, and it is 
going to be a critical component about how California, and, frankly, 
the rest of the Nation, can avoid getting into the same spot that 
California got into by adopting some pretty simple methods of 
conservation.
  Conservation does not mean you have to suffer in your life-style. 
There are a lot of very simple things that you can do in your life-
style that do not give you a negative impact, that do not serve as an 
inconvenience for you. Just think of them: Shut the lights off when you 
leave the room; make sure your fan is turning in a clockwise fashion in 
the summer; make sure you change your oil when the owner's manual tells 
you to change the oil on your car, instead of being marketed into 
changing your oil every 3,000 miles by the quick-lubes. There are a lot 
of things we can consider. Conservation is very critical for 
California.
  The second thing that is very critical for California is you have got 
to get over that habit, I guess you would say, or almost an idealism 
that you have locked into, and that is ``not in my backyard.'' In other 
words, let the other 49 States build the power plants,

[[Page 12737]]

let the other 49 States worry about electrical transmission lines, let 
the other 49 States worry about natural gas exploration and oil 
exploration, et cetera, et cetera. You cannot do that, California. 
California, you are going to have to help yourself. You are going to 
have to help pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
  Now, let me say, I am a fan of California. I like the State of 
California, and California is a State. We have 50 States. We are 
unified like brothers and sisters. We should not abandon California. I 
do not think we should stand up here and bash California.
  But we need to be frank with each other. California, quit pointing 
the finger at everybody else. California, quit saying it is everybody 
else's fault. You know what you need to do is help pull yourself up by 
your own bootstraps. And we should help, too. I do not think California 
should be left to die on the vine out there, so to speak.
  California, after all, if it were a country, it would be the seventh 
most powerful country in the world. It is huge in economics for this 
country, and every State of the Union is dependent upon good economic 
health in the State of California. But I think it is grossly unfair for 
any of my colleagues to stand up here and make it sound like it is 
everybody's fault but California's, and that everybody ought to pitch 
in but California, and that California has been abused here and 
California has been abused there.
  There are a lot of good minds in California, and a lot of those 
people will say, you know, we have to have conservation, number one; 
and, number two, we have got to have power plants.
  The fact is we need electricity in our everyday lives. We need oil. 
We need gas. We need it in a balanced fashion. And, to California's 
credit, although in many cases they may have gone overboard, in many 
cases California has been the leading State in demanding that the 
energy production be clean production, in demanding that we have higher 
efficiencies, and, to California's credit, just here in the last month 
or 2 months, California is responding to conservation. My understanding 
is their conservation has resulted in about a 10 percent decrease in 
the demand for energy that that State is having.
  So, the only reason I am making my comments, which are a little off 
the subject of which I wanted to talk about this evening, water, 
although when we talk about water, we are going to talk about energy 
and the renewable energy of water and its resource, my purpose in 
commenting is I just think somebody has to stand up here when some of 
my colleagues take this microphone and talk about ``poor old 
California'' and how it is everybody else's fault.
  You know, California, what you try to do, I will tell you what got 
California in this mess. They had a new theory of deregulation, and 
they went out to the customers in California and said, we will keep 
your price the same, no matter what happens out here in the market. We 
will buy on the spot market, and, regardless of what happens, the 
average will always allow us, even though it goes up and down, the 
average line in there will always allow you to be sold power at the 
same price. Something for nothing. That is exactly what they promised, 
something for nothing.
  For a little while it worked. Forty-nine other States did not adopt 
that policy. Forty-nine other States did not think they could get 
something for nothing. Forty-nine other States allowed power production 
to be built in their State. Forty-nine other States allowed electrical 
transmission lines. Forty-nine other States allowed natural gas 
transmission lines. But California thought they discovered something 
new, and that is by denial, by guaranteeing flat rates, and by shoving 
the obligations on the other 49 States, they thought they could sail 
through this, and they have not been able to.
  Now, what is happening out there, I think that the Governor finally, 
I notice a couple of weeks ago he went over and cut the ribbon for a 
new power generation facility. Finally they are going to allow some 
generation to be built in that State. Finally this ``not in my own 
backyard'' is going to be adjusted, not eliminated, because I do not 
think it should be put in every backyard, but it is going to be 
adjusted, and California is going to get back on its feet.
  I do not think California is in for the kind of crisis that some 
people on this floor think it is going to be in for. It has been a good 
lesson not just for the State of California, but a good lesson for all 
50 States, that, look, we need to plan for our future. We have an 
obligation to have some kind of vision into the future, to talk about 
what the energy needs are not only of today's generation, but what we 
can do for energy for tomorrow's generation, and that means serious 
discussions on alternative energy, although, as you know right now, do 
not be led down the path that alternative energy today is the answer.
  If you took all the alternative energy in the world, all of the 
alternative energy in the world, and devoted every bit of it to the 
United States, it only supplies 3 percent of our needs.

                              {time}  1930

  So do not exaggerate what alternative energy can do for us today. But 
we should focus on what alternative energy can do for us tomorrow. All 
50 States should do this. What happened in California was a warning 
shot to the entire Nation, and that is, we need to have an energy 
policy. That is exactly what has been missing here in the last few 
years. During the Clinton administration we had zero energy policy.
  I am very interested, by the way, to read the newspapers. I cannot 
find a newspaper, and maybe there is one out there, maybe the Wall 
Street Journal, but I cannot find much coverage or any kind of 
criticism of the Clinton administration for not having an energy policy 
for the last 8 years. But we can pick up any newspaper on a daily basis 
and see criticism against the current administration because they are 
trying to develop an energy policy.
  We need to put all of these things on the table. We need to discuss 
and debate and analyze exactly what it is that we have put on that 
table. We need to add things or take things off. But in the end we need 
a product that is called an energy policy that will allow us and 
instill upon us a vision for the future of this country, that will 
allow us to avoid the very kind of crisis that California got into, 
that will allow us less dependency on foreign oil.
  But we will not get that without some type of policy, and we will not 
come to that policy without some kind of debate. But instead, they are 
criticizing the debate; instead they are criticizing the administration 
in trying to put an energy policy together to put some ideas on the 
table and let us have discussions on this floor. Do not continually, 
colleagues, come to this floor and criticize. Everybody is to blame for 
California. Do not come to this floor, colleagues, and try and let all 
of us believe that the answer to this, the sole answer to this, is 
alternative energy or more conservation. All of those factors have to 
come together for the answer that we need.
  As much as you want to deny it, the fact is we are going to have to 
have more electrical generations. I think we are going to be responsive 
to that. In fact, in the rest of the Nation, in the other 49 States we 
are going to have a number of States that will have an electrical glut 
in about a year. Part of the problem is we do not have the electrical 
transmission lines to move that electricity. But my point is this, and 
that is that it is unfair for my good colleague from the State of 
California to speak at this microphone and act as if California's 
problems belong to the energy companies in the other 49 States. This 
was a problem that was brought upon themselves. It is a problem that 
all of us should help them get out of, but they have got to lead. They 
have got to have a little self-help. They have got to pull themselves 
up by their own bootstraps. And for the rest of us, colleagues, we have 
to sit down and work with the administration and come up with an energy 
policy that gives us vision for the future.
  Let me move from that subject to another subject. A subject that is 
near and dear to my heart. It is going to be a boring subject to my 
colleagues. I

[[Page 12738]]

know that many of you will probably find yourself snoring or not find 
this of particular interest, because it is about water.
  Water is one of the most wonderful things of our life. It is one of 
the more wonderful creations of God, if one believes in God, which I 
do. It is something that obviously we all know sustains life. It 
sustains a number of different factors in life.
  Water is pretty boring. Why? Because we have been blessed in most 
cases with plenty of water. As long as water runs out of the faucet, as 
long as the toilet flushes, as long as there is drinking water out of 
the sink it is not such a big issue. It is when it stops that all of 
the sudden it becomes a big issue.
  Just the same as energy, I think we need to have a vision for water 
in the future. Frankly, we have had from the generations and 
generations of people that have preceded us, we have seen vision for 
water. We have seen different types of utilizations of water and 
different planning for water for future generations. But in order for 
us to continue that kind of vision, we need to understand what water is 
about and what it has that is so valuable to our everyday lives.
  So I thought I would start out and visit just a little about the 
importance of our water.
  Let me say, first of all, in the State capital, my district is 
obviously in Colorado, my district is the highest district in the 
Nation, so I am at the highest elevation in the Nation. Up in my 
district, it snows year-round up on top of those mountain peaks. It is 
cold up there. It gets high. That is where a lot of this Nation's water 
comes from, are off the mountain peaks in my congressional district. So 
I think I know a little about water.
  In our State capitol of the State of Colorado, if any of my 
colleagues ever have an opportunity to go visit, go take a look at it. 
It is a beautiful building to start off with, but it has a number of 
different murals throughout the capitol building. Do you know what you 
see in every mural in the State capitol building in Colorado? Somewhere 
in that mural, you will see water, because water is the lifeblood in 
the West. Water is the lifeblood everywhere; but in the West, we are in 
a unique part of this Nation. There is a distinct difference between 
the eastern United States and the western United States.
  Mr. Speaker, one-half of the Nation is blessed with a lot of water. 
In fact, in the eastern United States, you see lawsuits or 
disagreements about: hey, put that water on my neighbor's land. I do 
not want that water. In the West, the suits are just the opposite. In 
the West, there are range wars fought, not only over sheep and cattle, 
but over water. They say water out there in the West does run like 
blood, and it is fought over with blood, and that it is as valuable as 
blood. That is the importance of water in the West; and there is a 
distinction, as I said.
  But in the State capitol there in Colorado, there is this language: 
``Here is a land where life is written in Water. The West is where the 
Water was and is Father and Son of old Mother and Daughter following 
Rivers up immensities of Range and Desert, thirsting the Sundown ever 
crossing a hill to climb a hill still Drier, naming tonight a City by 
some River a different Name from last night's camping Fire. Look to the 
Green within the Mountain cup; Look to the Prairie parched for Water 
lack; Look to the Sun that pulls the Oceans up; Look to the Cloud that 
gives the oceans back. Look to your Heart and may your Wisdom grow to 
power of Lightning and to peace of Snow.'' That is Thomas Hornsby 
Ferril.
  That is a saying in our capitol. That is why water is so critical.
  Let us look over a few statistics that are important. First of all, 
the interesting thing that I found about water, if we look at all of 
the water in the world, all of the water in the world, 97 percent of 
the water is the salt water; 97 percent. So only 3 percent of the water 
we have in the world is drinking-type of water, is nonsalt water, is 
clear water. And of the remaining 3 percent, if we took 75 percent of 
that 3 percent, that is all tied up in the ice caps up in the polar ice 
caps. So when we take a look at the amount of water worldwide, without 
the technological advances that perhaps the future will bring us for 
salinity and desalinization, we find that there is not really a large 
amount of water that we can use out of that big pot of water out there.
  When we take a look at our country, we can see that stream flow in 
the United States; and as I said earlier, there is a difference between 
the eastern United States and the western United States, but 73 percent 
of the stream flow in the United States is in the eastern United 
States. It is not in the western United States. So we have 73 percent 
in the East, and then in the Pacific Northwest we have another 12 
percent, and then the rest of the West, which makes up over half of the 
Nation. Remember, the West is vast in quantity of land. If we take the 
West, minus the Pacific Northwest, which consists of more than half of 
the Nation, we have 14 percent of the Nation's water. So in other 
words, more than half of the Nation has 14 percent of the water to 
provide life. That is pretty amazing.
  So we should understand that it is important that our water does not 
come on a consistent basis and it does not come in the same amount of 
quantity every year, year after year. In fact, day after day, the 
quantity of water that we have varies in the West, and it is not at all 
consistent. Some years we have great snowfall; but it gets too warm in 
the spring too early, and it runs off before we can use it. Some 
winters we do not get great snowfall, so we have drought. In much of 
the West right now we are facing drought conditions.
  The critical issue to remember about the West when we talk about 
water is that in the West, we have to store our water. We are going to 
talk about the mighty Colorado River. The State of Colorado is called 
the ``Mother State of Rivers,'' and we will go into that. It has four 
major rivers that come out of Colorado. In fact, the Colorado River out 
of the State of Colorado provides drinking water for 25 million people, 
25 million people. So my good friends in Phoenix or Las Vegas or 
Tucson, you are totally dependent upon the Colorado River. In Los 
Angeles, you are almost totally dependent on the Colorado River.
  The thing to keep in mind is that in the West, since we do not have 
consistent rainfall, we have very low rainfall. In fact, in the State 
of Colorado, we get about 16 inches a year, 16 inches a year. In some 
of the communities here, they get 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 inches in a heavy 
rain storm in a day, and that is pretty remarkable. So in the West, we 
have to be able to store our water, because when we do have a lot of 
water, we do have a lot of water during one period of time generally, 
and that is called spring runoff. When the high snows come into the 
mountains in the wintertime and it accumulates and accumulates and 
accumulates, and then in the springtime, when the flowers start to pop 
up, everything starts to green, the snow starts to melt, and very 
rapidly, and for about 30 to 90 days, for about 30 to 90 days, really 
probably 30 to 60 days, we have all the water we need in the West. It 
is called the spring runoff. We have all the water we need. But the 
problem is, for the balance of the year, we do not. That is in part one 
of the reasons we need to store our water in the West, why we need to 
have dams in the West.
  Now, in the East there are some radical environmental organizations, 
Earth First and some of the groups like that. Frankly, the national 
Sierra Club, which has never supported a water storage project in the 
history of that organization, they would like to make people in the 
East believe that in the West, a dam is an abuse of the environment, 
that these dams are nothing but atrocious toys for construction 
companies. We are totally dependent in the West.
  Mr. Speaker, any family or friends that we have in the West, they are 
totally dependent on our capability to store water. By the way, you 
know when the first dam was that we could find on the Colorado River? 
One thousand years ago. One thousand years ago the Anasazi Indians down 
at Mesa

[[Page 12739]]

Verde, Mesa Table, Verde Green, the Green Table, down in Mesa Verde we 
found proof that the Anasazi Indians were the first ones to come up 
with a dam; and they had reservoirs and they had canals, and then the 
Indian tribe, the Anasazis went extinct. We think the reason they went 
extinct was because they did not have enough runoff to store the water. 
So after hundreds of years, a period of time, the Anasazi goes out, we 
think the reason they became extinct was because of the lack of water.
  So those are some very interesting things. Let us look very quickly 
here, I covered here pretty much, so I think this is the critical point 
here: there is only 14 percent of the total stream flow to be shared by 
14 States which make up over half of the Nation's land use.
  Now, let us talk, just for a moment, because I think this next chart 
I want to show really was stunning to me. I found it fascinating. I had 
no idea how much water is required in our everyday life. I am not 
talking about showers or using the restroom or drinking water. I am 
talking about water for agriculture.

                              {time}  1945

  This is about water for agriculture. I watched with some interest the 
fact that out in the West the Federal Government has shut down farmers 
because they need to protect the sucker fish. I do not know enough 
about the dispute to argue on either side of that, but it has been on 
the national news the last few days. Watch and see how critical that 
issue becomes. It is critical for life out there in the West.
  Look at this chart. See if the Members are as interested in this as I 
am. Direct use of the water. This is water we would use every day. The 
average person uses two gallons to drink and cook in, two gallons of 
water.
  Imagine, at the grocery store, we all have an idea what a gallon of 
milk jug looks like. Two of those are necessary just for the drinking 
and cooking. For flushing the toilet for one's own personal use, we 
need about five to seven of those gallons of water.
  We have the grocery cart. We have two gallons for drinking and 
cooking. Now we have to put six, between five and seven, so say six 
more gallons for the use of the toilet. If we do wash that day we will 
have to put 20 more gallons into the shopping cart.
  Now it is time for a second shopping cart. If we use the dishwasher 
that day, we will need 25 more gallons into that shopping cart. Then, 
if we take a shower because we sweated so much from putting all of that 
water into the shopping carts, it is another nine gallons.
  Now take a look at what growing food takes, because growing food is 
what uses the most water. But what is the most beautiful aspect of 
water? What is the key ingredient of water? It is a renewable resource. 
One person's waste is another person's water.
  I remember years ago in Colorado when they came out and said that 
what we need to do, they demand that we go and lay concrete in all the 
ditches; line the ditches, because that water seeping into the ground 
is a huge waste of water.
  Do Members know what happens when we line a ditch and stop the 
seepage of the water within that ditch? We may be drying up a spring of 
somebody 3 miles away. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the 
technology today to look underneath the Earth and see where every 
little vein of water goes and how it connects.
  The generations that will follow us will find it fascinating, because 
they will have the technological apparatus to take a look and say, 
gosh, this ditch provides for this spring, which is 10 miles away, and 
this aquifer, which has been under the ground for thousands of years, 
it provides a stream to this aquifer which connects over here and pops 
up in a spring somewhere. Those are the kinds of things that this 
future generation will be able to see that we cannot see today.
  But what we do know today is that water is, number one, renewable. It 
is not like gasoline, where we use a gallon of gasoline and it is gone 
forever. It is not like natural gas, where we turn on the heater and 
bring the natural gas through. It is gone forever. It is not like 
nuclear with uranium, it is gone. Water is renewable, and that is why 
it is so important.
  Take a look. Most of the use of water is in agriculture. Now, it is 
interesting to me. In fact, I had the privilege, really the privilege, 
of being up in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I happen to think I have the 
prettiest district in the Nation. I have resorts, Aspen, Durango, I 
have all the Rockies, almost all the mountains in Colorado, but Jackson 
Hole comes pretty close.
  I was up in Jackson Hole. It was just beautiful, gorgeous. Of course, 
there is the national park, Yellowstone, the Teton National Park. I 
would love to discuss, and I intend to one of these nights soon, talk 
about the national parks and how important the national parks are for 
our Nation, and how many millions of people enjoy our national parks 
every year.
  But what was interesting is that we were looking out at Jackson Lake, 
which is north of Jackson Hole. As we were looking out there, they have 
a dam on Jackson Lake. That is what created the lake was the dam. I was 
listening. Somebody said, ``Well, the unfortunate thing about this dam 
is that the Idaho farmers, the Idaho farmers get the top 36 feet. They 
get the first 36 feet of storage. It is let out into the Snake River 
and it goes to the farmers in Idaho. That is really bad.''
  I thought, bad? This person is probably going to eat a potato for 
lunch. This person was probably going to eat lots of agricultural 
products during her day that were provided by water. Agriculture is not 
a bad thing, but we have to make the connection. We could not have a 
lot of agriculture in the West if we did not have the water storage to 
provide for it.
  In fact, what we would do is have very, very little agriculture in 
the West, very little way to sustain life in the West. The same thing 
with the Anasazi 1,000 years ago. When they ran out of the capability 
to have water for storage, the storage would not hold enough for them, 
they became extinct. That is why water is so important. That is why, 
when we look at a dam, we should look at what all it provides.
  Take a look at agriculture. This is amazing. One loaf of bread, I 
will bet Members did not know this, one loaf of bread, from the time we 
cultivate the soil to raise the wheat and to be able to process the 
wheat, to be able to turn it into a loaf of bread, we will have gone 
through 150 gallons of water, 150 gallons of water. That is what is 
necessary to have the final product of one loaf of bread.
  One egg, this is almost unbelievable, 120 gallons for one egg. We 
have to raise the chicken, give the chicken water, the chicken has to 
have the water on a regular basis, the egg has to be cleaned and 
processed, there is water within the egg, et cetera, et cetera. It is 
120 gallons.
  To produce one quart of milk, we have to have 223 gallons of water; 
for one quart of milk, one quart, 223 gallons; for a pound of tomatoes, 
125 gallons; a pound of oranges, 47 gallons; a pound of potatoes, 23 
gallons.
  So here is what happens, just so we have a comparison here. If we put 
50 glasses of water, 50 of these glasses of water out, of these, how 
were they used? Forty-four glasses of that would be used for 
agriculture, for our food products, 44 of those 50 glasses. Three 
glasses would be used by industry, two glasses would be used by cities, 
and half a glass would be used in the country for rural areas. Water is 
critical. Mr. Speaker, this gives us somewhat of an idea of just how 
important it is for all of us in our everyday life.
  Let me focus us back, Mr. Speaker, to the State of Colorado, because 
Colorado is a very unique State. As I said, it is the highest point in 
the Nation. It is also the only State in the Nation out of 50 States 
whereupon all of its water runs out. It has no incoming water for its 
use that comes into the State of Colorado. It all goes out. This gives 
an idea of the quantity of water that goes out of Colorado, the average 
annual outflow of major rivers through 1985.
  Now, this chart is old, so these numbers are off a little, but they 
are not off by a lot. They are still pretty close. These are acre feet. 
An acre foot is how much water it would take to put one

[[Page 12740]]

foot of water on an acre of land for 1 year, 4,540,000 acre feet right 
out of the Colorado River.
  Up here off the Yampa River in the green, 1,576,000. Every point that 
we see here, here is the South Platte that goes into Nebraska, almost 
400,000 acre feet of water. Down here on the Arkansas River, 133,000 
acre feet. Over here on the Animas River, 700,000 acre feet. Here, of 
course, is the mighty Colorado.
  This chart right here, Mr. Speaker, gives us an idea of the State of 
Colorado, which is a critical State for the West. Of all of the States 
in the West, I cannot think of any State that is more important for the 
water supply of the West. Remember, this is not just water for 
agriculture but it is water for hydropower, hydroelectric, whether Lake 
Mead or Lake Powell, Glen Canyon or the Hoover Dam, water for 
recreation, et cetera. Here Colorado is the key State because of its 
high elevation, because of its snowfall, which provides the flow of 
water.
  Colorado is really divided here into four major water basins: the 
Missouri; here we have the South Platte River; the Arkansas, we have 
the Arkansas River that goes through here. We also have down in here 
the Rio Grande, the Rio Grande River, which goes down near Alamosa, 
Colorado. Here on the Western side of the State we have the mighty 
Colorado River.
  Remember that, regarding the rivers in the West, as well as in the 
East, in the old days we used to have to live close to the rivers, but 
as man has evolved with technology, we can live further and further 
away from the rivers. So while the Colorado River, of which 70 percent 
of the water within that river basin is provided by the State of 
Colorado, and by the way, the Colorado River is one of the longest 
rivers in the Nation, but because of the technology, that water is 
moved.



  For example, in Colorado it is moved from the western part of the 
State, my district, which has 80 percent of the water resources. There 
is a good quantity of water that is moved from our part of the State to 
the eastern part of the State, which has 80 percent of the population.
  It is the same thing in Arizona. We have the Central Arizona Water 
Project, where we move water away from the basin into the cities, like 
Phoenix and Tucson or Los Angeles. We have the water project down in 
Los Angeles. So we move water from these basins. We have to have the 
capability to divert.
  This real quickly just gives us an idea. I mentioned that the 
Colorado River is one of the longest rivers in the Nation. This gives 
us an idea.
  Now, out here we have the Gulf of California, but in actuality most 
of the water that is left, when it enters Mexico near Baja, it is used 
by the country of Mexico.
  It is interesting that when the Colorado River was first divided up, 
they figured there were about 15 million acre feet of water a year that 
came down the Colorado River, 15 million acre feet. So they divided it, 
and in about 1922 they had what they called the Colorado River Compact. 
That is a very important compact for the West, and probably of all the 
water compacts in the West, that is the most critical. It divided what 
we called the Upper Basin States and the Lower Basin States. The Upper 
Basin got 7\1/2\ million acre feet, and the Lower Basin got 7\1/2\ 
million acre feet of water every year.
  But unfortunately, when those calculations were made, they were made 
when we had a very unusual year. We had the highest flow in any number 
of years. They were recorded at the highest record of flow. So in fact, 
we really do not produce 15 million acre feet of water on an average 
year out of the Colorado, which means that a lot of the Colorado River 
water is overappropriated.
  Now, on top of the 15 million acre feet, here is an interesting story 
for us. In World War II, the United States was concerned, as was the 
country of Mexico, that the Japanese would try and invade the United 
States through the country of Mexico. So the Mexican authorities and 
the United States, the American authorities, got together. Mexico 
wanted the defense of their country. The Americans did not want the 
Japanese in Mexico, so the Americans agreed to supply reinforcements or 
troops to the country of Mexico to defend Mexico if the Japanese 
invaded.
  The Mexican government, being the better negotiator of the two, said 
that we should want to keep the Japanese out of their country, and it 
is nice of us to protect them, but we ought to give them something for 
it, like 1\1/2\ million acre feet of the Colorado River.
  So that is exactly what happened. In 1944, the United States 
government agreed to give the country of Mexico 1.5 million acre feet, 
750,000 from the Lower Basin States, 750,000 from the Upper Basin 
States, of the surplus waters. Of course, there is a dispute over 
``surplus,'' which is going on between the Upper Basin States and Lower 
Basin States.
  They are getting too technical right now, my comments, but suffice it 
to say that the Colorado River Compact is really the point I want to 
make here. That is what has taken one of the longest rivers of the 
Nation and has divided it between the States that benefit from it. The 
Colorado River supplies drinking water for about 25 million people.
  One of the first people to explore, and we have all heard this name 
before, was John Wesley Powell. He explored. This, of course, had been 
discovered before by the Spanish, by the Anasazis, et cetera, et 
cetera, but John Wesley Powell and his party mapped and explored the 
Colorado River.
  They used wooden boats, and Mr. Speaker, I am sure some of my 
colleagues have rafted in Colorado. We think we have some of the best 
rafting, if not the best rafting, in the Nation. It is pretty scary. 
Imagine before those rivers were controlled by dams, before we had 
flood control, imagine the kind of rafts back then. They were big 
wooden barges, as we would see them today. That is what he went down 
on.
  Think of the disease and unknown territory. In fact, some of them 
probably still believed the Earth was flat. It was a pretty challenging 
thing. You died at a young age if you wanted to go out and explore the 
West. But John Powell and his parties did exactly that. In 1869 he 
described the roil and boil of the rivers that pass through the 
treacherous passages, like the Grand Canyon, and the hard labor of the 
boat crews just to keep it going.
  But John Wesley Powell mapped the Colorado River, and talked in his 
journal, in his diaries, and explained much of what he saw in the 
Colorado River. The result of the Colorado River, by the way, is what 
has provided absolute beauty, the Grand Canyon and the canyons in Utah.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members have never been out to the West, go to 
Colorado first, and of course spend money in the Third District, but go 
little further West and go into Utah and see those gorgeous canyons. Go 
into Arizona and see exactly what this mighty river has carved over all 
of these hundreds and thousands of years.
  Here is a good example. The Colorado River carved many of the gorges 
and canyons in the Colorado plateau. Dead Horse Point State Park in 
eastern Utah preserves the natural state of Meander Canyon, aptly named 
for the fantastic twists and turns the river etched into the soft 
sedimentary rock of the plateau.
  When Members stand from this position, where my pointer is, and they 
look out, these are huge canyon walls. We can see where the river is 
from the green that goes through, that cuts through all of this. This 
was all cut by the Colorado River.

                              {time}  2000

  It is a fabulous study, our history of this Nation and what it has 
provided for us. But it is also critical for the life-style of the 
people out there.
  Now, my colleagues will find that there is focused attention on the 
West. Remember that almost all of the Nation's public lands are in the 
Western United States. They are not in the Eastern United States. Let 
me very quickly kind of give a brief history on how that occurred.
  When we first settled our country, most of our population was on the 
eastern seaboard, and this country, this United States of America, 
wanted to grow. But back then, to grow, you had

[[Page 12741]]

to buy land. And if you bought the land, the title did not mean much. 
If you had a deed, you had a deed that said, hey, you own the State of 
Colorado or you own out there in the West this chunk of land, these 
millions of acres, but it did not mean much. The only way that you 
could obtain your land after you bought it was to get out there with a 
six-shooter on your side and possess the land. That is where the saying 
came from, the old saying that ``possession is nine-tenth's of the 
law.''
  That is exactly what happened that created public lands in the West 
and almost no public lands in the East. Why? Because our leaders in 
Washington, D.C. knew we needed to settle the frontier. We had gotten 
the Louisiana Purchase, we had gotten a number of other lands, and we 
needed to somehow give incentive to the population in the east to go 
west. ``Go west, young man, go west,'' as the saying went. So they 
decided to have land grants. They decided to have the Homestead Act, 
where if a person went out to Kentucky, and that was west to them, 
Kentucky was west, or go out to Missouri and Kansas and even to eastern 
Colorado, 160 acres back then could provide for a family. So they gave 
this land to the citizens of the United States who would go out and 
occupy the land, or possess the land on behalf of the United States of 
America. And after so many years, 5 or 6 years of working that land, 
you would own the land.
  Well, the problem was when they got to the Colorado Rockies, guess 
what happened? One hundred sixty acres did not even feed a cow. So they 
came back to Washington and said people are going west but when they 
hit the mountains they are going around trying to figure a way to get 
to the ocean side, the Pacific Ocean, but they are not staying in the 
mountains. How do we get them there? Somebody said maybe we should give 
them an equivalent amount of land. We give 160 acres in Kansas or even 
in eastern Colorado, let us give them what it would take, the 
equivalent amount of land, let us say 3,000 acres in the mountains. 
Somebody else said, no, no, we cannot politically do that. There is no 
way we could give out 3,000 acres to a particular individual and 
survive politically.
  So somebody came up with the idea, well, let us just go ahead in the 
west and let us let the government go ahead and hold the title in our 
name, the government's name, and let the people use the land. Let us 
have a concept called multiple use, ``a land of many uses.'' Let us 
have the West be a land of many uses. That is how we can get around 
that. We can get people to settle there. We will say, look, you do not 
get to put the land in your name, but you get to use it for yourself.
  Now, in recent times, that has been misinterpreted in many cases by 
some of the more extreme environmental radicals in the country, who 
say, look, the land in the West was intended to be set aside for all 
future generations. While we are comfortable here in the East, they 
should set that land, those public lands in the West, aside. And they 
are doing the same kind of thing for the water.
  Clearly, we have to have a balance. And thank goodness we had 
somebody like Theodore Roosevelt, who took a look at Yellowstone and 
with awe and a great deal of thought and, frankly, a great deal of 
brilliance put that into a national park. We have wonderful national 
parks on those public lands. We are pretty proud of those public lands. 
My district has huge amounts of public lands. But we have to be able to 
utilize those public lands, and it is the same thing with our rivers.
  We have to have dams in the West. My point in speaking tonight is not 
to just have my colleagues walk out of here with some book knowledge on 
the topic of water, but to understand the difference between the 
Western United States and the Eastern United States when it comes to 
water and the necessity of water resources and the necessity to store 
water and the necessity to use hydropower.
  By the way, in all of our discussions, especially of the last few 
months, when we have had debates and so on about the energy crisis, 
remember the cleanest energy producer out there is water. We do not 
need fuel to put water into a hydroelectric facility. All we do is take 
the energy of the water as it drops, turn a turbine, and we create 
electricity and then we can move the electricity.
  My real focus here this evening in front of my colleagues, especially 
those from the East, is to ask you to remember that life is different 
in the West. Sure, we are all American citizens and we are not saying 
we are being picked upon but we are saying there is a difference. There 
is a difference between night and day. A part of it is caused by the 
fact that most of the public lands are in the West. They are not here 
in the East. It is very easy, colleagues, to put regulations on us in 
the West, on public lands, because those in the East feel no pain. The 
East does not have any public lands. Well, there are the Appalachians, 
and a chunk down there in the Everglades, but, in essence, when we talk 
about public lands in the East, we are talking about the local 
courthouse or the property around the courthouse.
  When we talk about lands in the West, we are talking about 98 percent 
of some of our States, like Alaska. In my State alone, in my district 
alone, now get ahold of this, in my district I have over 22 million 
acres of public lands. And there is water on there. And that water is 
absolutely essential, one, for diversion, and, two, for the protection 
of the environment that we have. But my focus here this evening is that 
I hope, as my colleagues leave and that as I conclude my remarks, that 
everyone understands how important water is in the West; that we are 
arid out there in the West.
  We have over half of the Nation's land in the Western United States, 
over half of it, and we have 14 percent of the water. That means that I 
think my colleagues have to approach us with a little more open mind. 
When we talk about water storage projects in the West, when we are 
trying to stop a bill, for example, backed by the national Sierra Club, 
that we understand their number one goal is to take down Lake Powell. 
Now, Lake Powell and Lake Meade, those dams provide 80 percent of the 
water storage for the West, yet the national Sierra Club wants to take 
out almost half, almost half of our water storage in the West because 
they do not like dams.
  That is their number one goal. I am not making this up. It is in 
their publications. Their president's number one goal is to tear down 
Lake Powell, the second largest recreational, just behind Lake Mead for 
recreation, the second largest recreational facility in the West, 
despite the hydropower that it produces, the amount of water it stores 
for us out there. So, colleagues, when the national Sierra Club comes 
and talks to you and wants you to sign on to taking down Lake Powell, 
please, please understand that life in the West, when it comes to 
water, when it comes to public lands is different than back here. 
Listen to our side of the story before you sign on to any of these 
bills that take fairly dramatic steps not in your area of the Nation 
but in our area of the Nation.
  Before you sign on as a sponsor or cosponsor, take a look at the 
impact it creates on us. Take a look at what it does to your 
colleagues; take a look at the history of the Nation. I have 25 charts 
here that I can walk through depicting life in the West since the 
Anasazi Indians and since the Spanish explorers. We can walk through 
the time of John Wesley Powell and about how the West has managed those 
resources. And with all due respect, I would venture to say that many 
of us in this room, many of my colleagues in the room, especially those 
from the East, have no idea of the kind of life-style that is required 
in the West, and the natural resources and our use of the natural 
resources and our conservation of the natural resources.
  So, please, colleagues, do not let some of these organizations 
convince you that all of a sudden you are an expert in western water 
law. Do not let these experts or groups like the national Sierra Club 
convince you that you should become an expert and cosponsor a bill to 
take down Lake Powell, which is exactly what they want to do, or to 
stop the Animus La Plata

[[Page 12742]]

water project, which was promised to the Native Americans 30 or 40 
years ago. Those issues are critical for us out there. This is a Nation 
where the Eastern United States should understand the problems of the 
West and understand that the water situation here is different than our 
water situation back there in the West.
  My whole point here tonight is to tell my colleagues that in the 
West, as they say, our life is written in water and water is so, so 
critical. It has all come together. It all comes together when we begin 
to understand the geographical conditions, the historical conditions, 
the political conditions. Then we begin to say, you know, there is 
another side to this story that is important for all of us to 
understand.
  Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up this portion of my comments about water 
by just simply reiterating one point, and that is that there is a 
difference between the Eastern United States and the Western United 
States when it comes to natural resources. There is a difference 
between the Eastern United States and the Western United States when it 
comes to public lands. There are very few public lands in the Eastern 
United States. There are vast quantities of public lands in the West.
  The concept of multiple use, a land of many uses, that is how I grew 
up. When you would enter the government lands, which we are completely 
surrounded in my district, I have over 100 communities, I have a 
district larger than the State of Florida, and every community except 
one is completely surrounded by public lands, and when we enter the 
national forest and so on, if any of my colleagues have ever been out 
to the national parks or public lands, it says something like, ``you 
are now entering the White River National Forest.'' And there used to 
be a sign under that that said, ``a land of many uses.'' A land of many 
uses.
  Now we are seeing groups like the national Sierra Club or Earth First 
or more radical environmental groups coming out and saying they want to 
take that sign, ``the land of many uses,'' they want to take it off and 
put on a sign that says ``no trespassing.'' And it is the same thing 
with our water. The quickest way to drive people out of the West is to 
cut off their water. And it is not complicated. In the Eastern United 
States it would be very complicated to shut off the water. You have a 
lot of it. It rains all the time. In the West, all we have to do is 
take down a couple of dams.
  Go ahead, let the national Sierra Club take down Lake Powell. You 
take down Lake Powell, and you will shut off a large portion of the 
west. You would take away life, the human population, and, by the way, 
a great deal of vegetation and animal population out there because we 
have been able to utilize that water and store that water so we can use 
it beyond the spring runoff. So keep in mind in the west life is 
written in water.
  Let me use my final concluding remarks on a topic that is obviously 
totally unrelated, but I want to go back to my remarks at the beginning 
of this and that is on this energy thing. By the way, I heard some 
comments earlier today that we have no free market in the energy, that 
we need to have the government run the energy business in this country. 
Nothing would be worse than inviting the government into our front 
doors to begin running our energy companies for us. Nothing would be 
worse than allowing the government to intercede in the private 
marketplace.
  Now, I am not speaking about stopping antitrust, where intercession 
is necessary. According to Adam Smith, and he is right, a monopoly is a 
dangerous tool to management. But to intercede and to actually become 
almost socialistic like, where we would have the government supply the 
power and the gasoline, and we would have the government guarantee it 
will all come at a reasonable price, we should not buy into this 
concept that the government is going to be able to give us something 
for nothing.
  Take a look, for example, at the government's intercession in lots of 
other different programs. In almost every case, when the government 
takes over or begins to think that it can do better than the private 
marketplace, we end up with lots of regulation, we end up with 
subsidies, and we never get something for nothing. This energy is a 
problem that we all have to work through.
  The way we work through it is we put several components together. One 
of those critical components is conservation. Now, not every citizen 
can go out and find natural gas, not every citizen is going to be able 
to build a transmission line out there, and not every citizen can build 
a generation plant, but one thing that every citizen in our Nation can 
do is to help conserve. And if we want to keep the government out of 
our lives, we only need to help conserve energy. Because the more 
energy that we waste, the more energy shortages we then have, the more 
temptation there is to have the government come in as a quick fix, as 
some kind of waving of the magic wand that the government is going to 
be able to deliver to us any kind of product at a cheaper price. The 
private marketplace does pretty good if we can all help.
  So to conclude this portion of my remarks, let me say that I think it 
is incumbent upon every citizen in this country, and I speak through my 
colleagues, that we have to go out into our districts and encourage our 
constituents. Because if there is one thing that every citizen in this 
country can do to help alleviate the energy crisis, that exists 
primarily in California but is a warning shot to the rest of the 
Nation, it is to conserve.

                              {time}  2015

  And we can all do it by simply shutting off our lights, changing our 
car oil when the owner's manual says it instead of when the lube market 
tells you to do it. I am optimistic about future energy of this 
country. Slowly but surely we are building an energy policy, and 
conservation is going to be an important part of it. You cannot 
conserve your way out of the situation that we are in.
  Alternative energy is an important part, but do not overplay it. As I 
said earlier, if you took all of the alternative energy in the world 
and delivered it all to the United States, it would only supply 3 
percent. Certainly this young generation behind us, their brilliant 
minds will be able to make that much, much larger because they will 
find ways to take energy out of water.
  The first and most immediate thing we can do is come up with an 
energy policy as a government. We can urge our constituents to 
conserve. But the worst thing we can do is propose that the government 
put on price controls, that they take over industries, that they seize 
power plants and the government becomes your local electric utility. It 
would be the most inefficient operation in the history of our 
government. Do not let them do it. You cannot get something for nothing 
out of this government. If it is the government running it, you usually 
pay a higher price than if you as a community can have the private 
sector with checks and balances. I have spoken primarily about energy, 
about water.
  Mr. Speaker, one last shot on water and then I am done. That is keep 
in mind in the East and West of this Nation, there are differences in 
water and differences in public lands. I would urge all of my 
colleagues in the East and all of their constituents in the East to 
please take the time before signing on a petition to take on Lake 
Powell or kick people off public lands, take a look at both sides of 
the story. If you take a look historically, politically, 
environmentally at both sides of the story, I think you will have a 
better understanding of what I have said tonight and a much deeper 
appreciation for our message from the West.

                          ____________________