Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Res. 78.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 78 offered by Representative LaMalfa of California, which would undo the listing of the longfin smelt in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment under the Endangered Species Act.

The listing was based on flawed science in response to an ESA-related lawsuit and adds yet another piece of regulatory red tape preventing water from reaching California's Central Valley and communities further south.

California's Central Valley is one of the most prolific agricultural regions in the world, growing hundreds of crops that feed millions of people. However, this region faces continual water uncertainty due to drought and ESA-related regulations.

The Central Valley Project, or CVP, transports water from wetter areas in northern California to drier areas further south, including the Central Valley. It is subject to ESA biological opinions that mandate water that would otherwise go to communities and farms be diverted to the San Francisco Bay.

The effects of this can be seen at this very moment in California where Federal reservoirs are almost full, yet many farmers are only receiving half of their water allocations. This is in large part due to restrictions imposed by the ESA, which will only be exacerbated by the listing of the longfin smelt.

Unfortunately, the rush to judgment that ensued from the lawsuit resulted in a listing based on flawed assumptions and bad science.

First, by solely focusing on the bay-delta rather than the longfin smelt's entire range, the service ignores the fact that the species has been found in dozens of locations, including in and around every tributary of the San Francisco Bay. Meaning the longfin smelt is not at risk of extinction and does not meet the statutory definition of an endangered species.

Instead of being based on science, this listing comes from the common radical environmental playbook of suing for a predetermined outcome.

Radical groups have litigated for years trying to get the longfin smelt listed under the ESA, with a 2024 lawsuit compelling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a listing decision being the latest example.

Unfortunately, as with many ESA-related lawsuits, the species is rarely the true motivation. The leader of the organization that filed the lawsuit in question said the not-so-quiet part out loud when he said that protecting the longfin smelt going forward would require taking more water away from farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for all of his efforts on this. He is a farmer. He knows about agriculture. He knows about the water issues in California.

This is an issue that is important to our whole country. It is not just important to California because most of the fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in this country are in the Central Valley of California. Without water, you can't grow any of them.

If we are taking water away from the Central Valley for unnecessary reasons, that means that the rest of the country is going to suffer when we go to the grocery market.

Mr. Speaker, I think, if truth be known, there is one reason why the longfin smelt got listed. It is because it would divert water away from the Central Valley, and I don't understand that. I don't understand why groups would be so adamant to be taking water away from the breadbasket of our country and shifting it to a purpose that is not accomplishing anything.

There are a lot of myths about the longfin smelt. There is a myth that, if they are listed, it will have no effect on the farmers in the Central Valley. I will read a quote from the science director who was involved from the San Francisco Baykeepers when the listing was finalized:

``Preventing further decline and extinction of longfin smelt will require reducing California's diversion of fresh water from the Bay's watershed to supply unsustainable industrial agriculture. . . .''

If water is taken away from agriculture in the Central Valley, it is unsustainable. You can't grow anything without water.

We need to get back to the science, as Mr. LaMalfa stated, and it is unfortunate that we have to do a CRA on an endangered species listing, but that is what happens when administrations make bad decisions.

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge and agree with my friends from across the aisle. Mark Twain was correct. The more I learn about water, the further west you go, the more it is for fighting. We can agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to try to help them solve the issue about parallel universes from an outsider's perspective. I would say that most people who live in States that are east of California, maybe some that are north and west of California, if you go to California, you realize it is a very beautiful State, a very blessed State, wonderful resources, beautiful beaches, beautiful forests, the most productive farmland in the country, some of the most unique trees in the world, wonderful weather, good fishing. Everything nice, it seems like California has it.

I think we all love California, but we all realize somehow it is kind of a different universe than the rest of the country that we live in. Maybe they embrace that and like that, the good people of California.

When we look at this legislation, H.J. Res. 78, it is a serious thing. The ESA listing in question was based on incomplete and bad science and will further complicate the delivery of water in California communities. It is already complicating the delivery of water.

Passing this resolution will further the priorities of President Trump, who has signed two executive orders aimed at removing unnecessary regulations that prevent water from being delivered to southern California.

The current paradigm of having full reservoirs in California while many farmers are only receiving half of the water they are supposed to be getting is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable. It takes away the myth that this is all due to drought conditions. It is not drought conditions in California right now, yet farmers are still only getting half the amount of water they were promised to get.

This resolution is cosponsored by the entire California Republican delegation. I thank each Member for standing up for their constituents and tirelessly fighting for additional water resources in the face of Federal and State government overreach and radical decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source