Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, here we go. This last winter, as the gentleman pointed out, actually upwards of 200,000 cubic feet per second were moving through the delta. On days like that, we were pumping 2,300 cubic feet per second at the pumps.

Now, the Governor believes--and many believe--that the solution, because they were afraid it was going to reverse flow, the delta, when 200,000 cubic feet are moving through the delta, is to build these tunnels. And now, if these tunnels are built, we are saying we are going to suck dry the Sacramento River. Come on. That couldn't happen. We can't even pump up to the biological opinion.

We are not talking about eviscerating the Endangered Species Act. We are talking about pumping water up to the biological opinion of 5,000 cubic feet per second. We all know that those pumps are capable of pumping up to 11,000 cubic feet per second. They couldn't even pump 15,000 cubic feet per second, because they can only go up to 11,000 cubic feet.

Saying that, this is a solution that is on the table. It has been thought out. It costs a lot of money. I know there are some questions that have to be answered. But the solution that the gentleman keeps bringing up is a solution that nobody can agree to.

So we are doing the best we can in the majority to make sure that we have water for the people in the Central Valley--and, by the way, for southern California, where our economy is suffering because of this; certainly, the Central Valley is suffering because of this--and to come up with solutions that can work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, while there may be instances in which greater coordination would be helpful in ensuring our ocean and coastal resources are available to future generations, any such coordination must be done carefully to protect against Federal overreach.

As we have seen recently with the proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States, strong congressional oversight is needed to ensure that we protect private property rights.

Unfortunately, the way the administration developed its National Ocean Policy, it increases the opportunities for overreach. The implementation plan is so broad and so sweeping, that it may allow the Federal Government to effect agricultural practices, mining, energy producers, fishermen, and anyone else whose actions may have an impact on the oceans.

The fact is the administration did not work with Congress to develop this plan and has even refused to provide relevant information to Congress, so we can't be sure how sweeping it actually will be. That is why I support the language in the underlying bill and, therefore, oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source