Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act
WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 09, 2004)
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 711, I call up the bill (H.R. 2828), to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources, and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. R. 2828.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is a giant step forward in resolving California's water supply problems.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the full committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 ½ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I make a statement about this bill, I want to also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for all her great work on this bill. She has spent many hours and days traveling across the State of California. I think we probably were in most congressional districts throughout California as this process took place. Certainly I thank her for her great work in this legislation.
This bill represents great progress in helping solve the water problems of the west by making California more self-reliant and carefully using its own water supply. We have come a long way over the last few years. The Subcommittee on Water and Power conducted three field hearings in California, a legislative hearing, two mark-ups, and too many meetings to count to get where we are today.
Individually, many of the members of our committee have helped to shepherd often contentious quantification settlement agreements, for instance, that was delayed, but we finally came to a decisive conclusion. My friends in the upper-lower basin States should know that this bill today is another positive step in California weaning itself from historically overdrafting the Colorado River.
As we have found with the plumbing in California's water system, everything in the world of water is related to everything else. Thus, achievements like the quantification settlement agreement helped us conclude the carefully balanced agreement on CALFED that we have before us today. Water is not and should not be a partisan issue. I worked constructively with the Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), Senator Feinstein, as I mentioned, the ranking Democratic member; the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza); of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and many, many more to make sure this bill before us is a consensus that I believe that it is.
I am proud to have many Democratic members of the Committee on Resources supporting this bill. The original intent of CALFED was to provide balance to a complex water delivery system, to ensure that everybody gets better together.
That is what this bill does. H.R. 2828 simply and truly means that the environment, recreation, drinking water, agriculture and industries gets better together.
As our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) said, This bill makes historic strides in water quality improvements in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Improved water quality helps everyone across the board. We have also created new water supplies for southern California through my friend, the gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Napolitano) water recycling amendment, and we enhanced surface storage to improve water quality for families in our colleagues' district in the Bay area and beyond as evidenced by the support of such water districts as the Northern California Water District, Contra Costa Water District, Central Contra Water District and many others.
We have created a right to know provision by making Federal agencies report how they will spend the money.
Congress and the American taxpayer deserve government accountability and this bill provides it.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to bring ultimate resolution to this bipartisan effort. Our bill includes and supports a diverse approach to solving our water problems, including
conservation, reclamation, desalinization, conjunctive use, ground water storage and, of course, surface storage options that have been carefully studied and negotiated down to the bare minimum.
We have made significant progress and we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. With today's vote, we will pass this bill and we will make that light shine even brighter. I urge support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 ½ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself what time I may consume for a short comment.
Congressional approval of water projects from planning through construction is not a new concept. The Corps of Engineers has authority through the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, to implement projects following a favorable Chief's, or some people call it feasibility, report.
Through WRDA, Congress approves projects from planning through construction, subject to the conditions stated in a favorable Chief's report. Numerous examples of the corps' projects can be found in WRDA 1996, WRDA 1999, and
WRDA 2000 which authorize construction following a favorable Chief's report.
In the last three WRDAs, over 50 projects were approved from planning through construction, with conditional authorization subject to a favorable Chief's report. New projects were conditionally authorized, and there were additional project modifications that were conditionally authorized.
WRDA projects conditionally authorized included the Bel Marin Keys Unit, California, well over $100 million; Kill Van Kull, New York and New Jersey navigation project, $325 million authorization to $750 million; the Savannah Harbor Expansion navigation project $230 million, and I can go on and on and on.
Are my colleagues saying we should replace the 120-day congressional authorization which is in the present bill with extensively used WRDA language that Congress has accepted and continues to support?
H.R. 2828 includes provisions that approve water recycling projects from planning through construction which was proposed by the Southern California Democrats. By the way, these four projects that are in this bill are in the Record of Decision which has been negotiated over the years, as all my friends know, and a very difficult negotiation, to bring this process of CALFED in a balanced manner forward.
So I would say to my colleagues, this is nothing new. People would like to see these projects built if, in fact, they are feasible; and all the environmental processes, NEPA, CEPA, Endangered Species Act, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, must be met to make sure that these projects are viable and feasible under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and inquiry.
As the gentlewoman knows, I strongly support recycling as a way to reduce Southern California's dependence on imported water and help drought-proof the region. That is why I supported H.R. 1156, a bill championed by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), whose district includes the Groundwater Replenishment System, and the gentlewoman here today from the 47th district.
I am fully supportive of House passage of H.R. 1156, H.R. 2991, introduced by our colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and other recycling bills reported by the House Committee on Resources, but I know that it is up to the leadership on both sides of the aisle to determine which bills are debated on the House floor.
In the meantime, I will continue to strongly support H.R. 1156, and I thank the gentlewoman's support for H.R. 2828.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support of the Salton Sea. I would like to assure him that I and many of our Southern California colleagues, including the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), continue to strongly support the restoration of the Salton Sea, and we will work with him and others in our delegation to continue these efforts.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into a very brief colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee; that being, does this bill change existing law as it relates to area of origin?
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the gentleman's question is: No.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close, and I want to again thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for her good work and her dedication on this legislation. She spent many hours and much of her time traveling through the State of California and throughout the western United States as we came to understand the issue of water.
There are very few subjects that bring out more emotion and passion than water, and certainly I have grown to understand the subject much better over the last number of years. I am looking forward to passing this bill today and moving ahead.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for general debate has expired.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. CALVERT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working hard to improve this bill since its introduction. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute is a bipartisan amendment that has been carefully crafted based on input from Senator Feinstein and her staff, the administration, the State of California, and water groups. This amendment was not crafted in a vacuum, and I believe it addresses many concerns voiced over the last several weeks.
Reflecting the dynamic that differing regions of California represent, as opposed to the whole State, the amendment also includes necessary policy provisions:
Bay-Delta water quality protections: Bay-Delta water quality issues have not been adequately addressed in the past and they need to be fixed now. It is not fair that the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), or the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), or the constituents of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) should bear the highest water quality burdens because of circumstances outside their control.
These water quality provisions addressed in this bill are the results of discussions between water users throughout California, including in-Delta water uses. Most importantly, these provisions do not allow increased pumping unless water quality standards are met.
Water storage: Everyone wants to have more flexibility delivering water supplies throughout the State. Increased storage will give us more flexibility and improve water quality. In fact, my good friends in districts in the Bay area and beyond recently supported the Los Vaqueros expansion for these very purposes. My amendment provides that CALFED storage projects are subject to appropriate feasibility studies and if Congress does not act to disapprove them in 120 days, then construction is authorized.
Ensuring that adequate storage is part of a balanced CALFED is important here since CALFED expenditures so far have been imbalanced. This provision helps develop CALFED storage, and in no way undermines the regulatory process, including the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, SEQA, the Clean Water Act, and a number of other Federal acts and laws. Furthermore, these projects are still subject to appropriations.
Ecosystem restoration: The amendment has a "right to know" provision on how taxpayer dollars are being spent on ecosystem restoration. These provisions ask the Federal agencies to submit a management plan for CALFED-related ecosystem projects. These management plans would require a cost analysis, possible alternatives, disclosure of impacts, and required mitigation. All other projects, like storage projects, require much more detailed feasibility reports. We are only asking for a management plan that sits before Congress, which has no veto authority over such a management plan. This is nothing more than a good government plan that in no way hinders ecosystem restoration.
Mr. Speaker, there has never been a water bill that everybody likes. God knows I know that. But this is getting close.
We have worked hard to resolve concerns and will continue to work with my colleagues and stakeholders on these issues. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking Democrat.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), knows, negotiating water agreements is not easy; and we have had numerous conversations about the subject of water over the years. And certainly he has a long history in water in the State of California. As everyone knows who has been involved in water negotiations, they are difficult. There are conflicts all over the place. One of the concepts that we took when we went down this road was balance; and the Record of Decision that was a difficult Record of Decision to come to a conclusion, part of that was water storage on four projects. There were a lot more water projects that were being considered in that Record of Decision, but it was weaned down in difficult negotiations to really a limited amount of water storage.
Over $12 million has been spent to date on looking at the feasibility of these four projects. All of the environmental laws must be met, and that is considerable, before any of these projects could ever become feasible. And even then if in fact they are deemed feasible, you would have to go through the appropriation process.
As I would point out to my friends, the Auburn Dam is an authorized project. I doubt if it will ever get appropriations to build. Unless a project is feasible, unless it has the political support in order to build, it will not happen.
And so I would say this motion to recommit takes the balance out of the process that we put together, and I believe it would remove all support for this CALFED process to continue. So I would urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the motion to recommit and vote "yes" on final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.