Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I remember very clearly when President Clinton asked Vice President Gore to conduct an effort to reorganize government at the Federal level, to make it more efficient, to look for ways in which we could cut down on bureaucratic red tape and to try to find other efficiencies that exist. This was but one of many recommendations that Vice President Gore and his group came up with.

Mr. Speaker, the success of the Bureau of Reclamation to convert portions of the arid West into the largest and most advanced agricultural economy in the world cannot be overstated.

Nowhere is that more evident than in California's San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agriculture region in the world. We grow 60 percent of the Nation's fruits and vegetables, healthy diet, good nutritional food for America's dinner table, besides leading in so many other commodities that we grow.

As a matter of fact, it helps the balance of payments. California's agricultural economy, 44 percent of it, is part of our international trade.

It would not be possible, though, without the complex and well- planned set of dams, canals, and other structures that have operated successfully for generations--generations.

However, over time, the aging infrastructure needs to be repaired. It needs to be updated. Many of the reclamation projects, when they were originally authorized by Congress and the funds were appropriated, were intended to be turned over to local districts to operate once the projects were repaid, and that is an important caveat. Clearly, there was a requirement in the authorization that these projects be repaid, and many of these projects around the country are in various states of being repaid.

After the project's operation and maintenance responsibilities have been fully transferred, the actual ownership would then be transferred as well.

The transfer of title to local operators, I think, has numerous benefits to water users and to the taxpayers. It can reduce paperwork, staff time--both at the Federal and local levels--reduce Federal backlog of infrastructure repair projects, and help improve the environment for public safety because, yes, the environmental laws would still be in place.

I can tell you, in California, our environmental laws are stronger than at the Federal level, so I don't believe that is truly an issue.

And, frankly, we know what the status of our debt in this country is, and we know that so many of our departments and agencies--and in the case of Federal reclamation projects, there is not sufficient funding to do the repair and maintenance that is necessary. It is just very simple: The money is not there, and yet these aging projects are continuing to try to operate as best they can.

A transfer can also provide more flexibility to finance local upgrades and repairs because it provides an asset to be used as collateral.

When we passed the settlement agreement from the Friant water users, as an example, with the NRDC, part of the caveat was that Friant water users would be able to repair the Friant-Kern Canal.

Keeping water facilities in good condition, particularly those that recharge groundwater, is critical not only to the San Joaquin Valley that I represent that grows this abundant and incredible cornucopia of food that is on America's dinner table every night, but today there are large sections of the Friant-Kern Canal that stretch from the Friant Dam all the way down to Bakersfield that have less than 60 percent of their capacity to move water through.

So last year, when we had an abundance of water, almost 200 percent above average, that water could have been used to recharge the groundwater in parts of Tulare and Kern Counties. But because we couldn't move the water through that portion that has subsided, that has cracked, and that is badly in need of repair, we were not able to move the water that the facility initially had capacity to move.

That is one example. There are any other examples.

Importantly, a title transfer does not ultimately change the way facilities are operated; it just doesn't.

Since 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation, working with interested stakeholders, has worked to improve the title transfer process. But I believe it is very important to note that, however, specific congressional authorization--which this legislation attempts to provide some authorization--is still needed to transfer the title of any facility, no matter how small, unless a separate administrative process is established by law to allow the transfer of such ownership. That is what this legislation attempts to do.

This legislation, therefore, creates an administrative process while maintaining the ability of Congress to have the final word, and that is to disapprove of any proposed transfer by passing a resolution of disapproval.

So if the Secretary, in fact, worked such an agreement, moves forward with a transfer of the title, and Congress says, ``No, we want to determine these on a case-by-case basis,'' this legislation will allow that to happen. It gives Congress the final word.

And a NEPA-like process must be a part of that administrative effort to, in fact, successfully transfer the title. So it has got to be repaid; you have to have a NEPA-like process; and--guess what--Congress has the final word.

This legislation would significantly streamline the title transfer process, divest the Federal Government of unnecessary liability, and allow these projects to run, I think, more effectively and with better outcomes when local water districts that are publicly owned, that have their own elected boards, have their own fiduciary responsibility to provide water to the area they serve, to make good, cost-effective decisions on behalf of the water interests that they serve, whether they be farmers or whether they be communities. And it is all of the above.

So this legislation is supported by many organizations, it is bipartisan, and I thank the author of the legislation for helping facilitate legislation that will allow reclamation to improve a title transfer process, which is not a new idea. It goes back to the Clinton administration.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I support this legislation, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source