[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2555-2556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       KLAMATH RIVER DAM REMOVAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Natural Resources 
Committee, I requested and demanded that the Interior Department 
explain its involvement in creating what appears to be a shell 
corporation, which it calls a non-Federal entity, which would work to 
remove dams on the Klamath River in northern California and southern 
Oregon, this without any authorization from Congress.
  Interior officials refused to answer in committee whether they will 
be subject to the Freedom of Information Act or even explain why 
stakeholders are required at these meetings to sign nondisclosure 
agreements before learning how they will be affected by the actions at 
these secret meetings.
  They don't like having them called secret meetings. They have other 
euphemisms, such as a private conversation, what have you. They are 
even organizing bylaws for an incoming board at these meetings.
  Mr. Speaker, the very idea that Federal and State government 
employees are involved in a project designed explicitly to avoid open 
government, open government laws, and public disclosure should give us 
all pause, especially since tax dollars are being used to pay for the 
salaries of those folks involved, their travel, the meeting spaces, et 
cetera. They are not doing this pro bono.
  While this is billed as a California-Oregon project, the Interior 
Secretary's signature is on a pact to create this entity that suggests 
that the administration is, again, trying to end run Congress to 
achieve a political goal.

[[Page 2556]]

  I will continue working to get answers on this Klamath issue on the 
removal of the dams and the effect it will have on the Klamath Basin 
water users.
  But in the meantime, the administration needs to end its focus on dam 
removal and work towards a solution that doesn't ignore the water 
supply issues that affect so much of the West, affect many thousands in 
northern California, and especially those directly in the line of fire 
in the Klamath Basin that have been clamoring for so long for a long-
term solution to keep the waters flowing to their farms.
  At a time of extreme drought in California and the Western States, 
and even more burdens such as the electricity renewable mandate that is 
going to affect California to 50 percent of required renewables, the 
concept of removing hydroelectric dams that also make a little water 
storage and have some positive effects on river temperature is absurd.
  Why is the priority something that is going to hurt the people of the 
region, hurt their goals?
  Instead, we should be pursuing water storage in California and 
putting this issue aside.
  On top of that insult to injury is that it is being done in secret, 
without congressional approval, without the chance for all the 
stakeholders that really have an affect in the area to be involved.
  This is the wrongheaded way to do things. It is offensive to me, it 
is offensive to my constituents.

                          ____________________