[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3283-3284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AMENDMENT NO. 296 TO H.R. 1, OFFERED BY MR. McCLINTOCK OF CALIFORNIA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. WALLY HERGER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 3, 2011

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, as a staunch supporter of dams, I understand 
my colleague's position on this issue and I intend to support this 
amendment. The Department of the Interior has been studying the 
potential removal of four hydroelectric facilities, three of which are 
located in the Congressional District I represent, and my constituents 
in Siskiyou County have rightfully expressed overwhelming opposition to 
the prospect of removing functioning hydropower dams and their 
associated benefits. I fully share that concern, as well as the 
disturbing precedent it sets with respect to other hydroelectric 
projects. From my longtime advocacy for projects such as the proposed 
Sites Reservoir in Colusa County, the Auburn Dam on the American River, 
a dam on the Yuba River and raising Shasta Dam, few Members of Congress 
have been a stronger supporter of increasing surface water storage. 
These marvels of engineering have allowed California to prosper by 
providing critical water to get us through drought years, flood 
control, and cheap, renewable hydroelectric power. Put simply, we need 
more dams, not fewer.
  For those reasons, it is troubling that we are even here discussing 
this issue. We need to change the current regulatory structure that 
gives perceived ``environmental benefits'' unyielding priority--often 
at unbearable cost--over the social and economic benefits provided to 
people by dams and other wise-use of our resources: These laws and 
regulations have forced the owner and operator of the dams on the 
Klamath River to a point where decommissioning these facilities--by way 
of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement--is the least-cost 
option for its customers and ratepayers in California and elsewhere, as 
opposed to relicensing. These laws and regulations also caused the 
tragic 2001 water shutoff that affected 1,200 farm families in the 
Klamath Basin and led them to enter into this settlement process in the 
hopes of bringing greater stability and water reliability to the Basin 
in order to continue their way of life.
  It represents a monumental failure at the federal level when we 
consider that, under the laws and regulations that are on the books at 
this moment, there is currently no alternative that will allow these 
facilities to be operated as cost-effectively as it had during the 
several

[[Page 3284]]

decades of its previous license term, or allow the federal government 
to fully meet the obligations it made over a century ago with the 
development of the Klamath Reclamation Project.
  I.say this to make the point that, unfortunately, this amendment by 
itself will not address the real underlying issue--the appalling 
environmental extortion that continues to affect property owners across 
the rural West and the hardworking people who put food on our tables 
and provide the raw materials that make life comfortable for the rest 
of us. Clearly, our laws are grossly out of balance, and I look forward 
to working with Chairman McClintock, Chairman Hastings, Mr. Walden and 
my other colleagues to implement the necessary environmental reforms to 
prevent the continued degradation of our economic infrastructure at the 
hands of environmental activists and bring greater certaiity to the 
Klamath Basin's agricultural community.

                          ____________________