Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, California is experiencing its worst drought in decades, threatening local drinking water supplies, power generation and California's economy, and relief does not seem to be near at hand.

More than three-quarters of the State is in extreme or exceptional drought, and it affects every resident in my home State. It would be wrong to take action today that would help one part of the State but harm another.

In its current form, the bill is not clear on how reallocating thousands of acre-feet of water from the San Joaquin River restoration to the State's agricultural sector will affect future water supply. We must think about the long-term impacts of today's water decisions, and my amendment ensures that this bill will not adversely affect any community's water supply or water budget, especially during predicted dry years.

It is imperative that we figure out how to ensure sustainable water supplies so that next year or in 5 years or in 20 years, Californians on the farms, in the suburbs or in our cities will still have enough water to drink to pursue their livelihoods.

Water is our most precious resource, and we must manage it carefully. The underlying bill does not create more water and will not make it rain. We must make sure that decisions made here in Washington won't hurt everyday Californians.

Water decisions in California affect every part of the State, including my district in southern California. Recently, the State Water Project announced a zero allocation for this year. This unprecedented move means that southern California communities, including San Diego, will get no water from the Bay Delta in the northern part of the State.

Reallocating and rerouting water will not solve that problem. The real solution is to become resilient in the face of future droughts through improved conservation, expanded storage and increased diversity in our water supplies.

San Diego was devastated by drought in the 1970s, and since then, southern California has made necessary investments to better prepare for, respond to and withstand drought. Over several decades, San Diego has reduced its long-term water demand and has invested in increased efficiency.

Per capita water use has decreased about 27 percent since 2007, and local cities and water districts are on pace to meet their State-mandated water-efficiency targets for 2020. Total regional consumption of potable water in 2013 was 24 percent lower than in 2007.

By raising the San Vicente Dam, the largest dam raise in the Western Hemisphere, and constructing the Olivenhain Dam, San Diego has dramatically increased its storage capability, which will supply adequate storage during dry years. The San Diego County Water Authority and the city of San Diego are national leaders in recycling wastewater and in desalination, turning ocean water into usable potable water.

So San Diego has done, and is continuing to do, its part because we have done a good job of conserving, preparing and investing as needed to minimize the coming hardships. A real drought solution should not put any community at risk of losing future water supplies to another region without addressing better measures to conserve and store water.

This certainly is not the last drought California will face. We will continue to have water supply challenges, and we need to be continuing to prepare for the future. All users must become more resilient, and any action now should have the foresight to maintain water supplies for dry years that are sure to come.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect communities across California and to promote a long-term vision for protecting our scarce water resources. I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess we have come to some agreement that the Government can't create water, and that is productive. I guess what I would say is that we are at 12 percent of snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which has functioned as our water storage, and it is not there.

What I would say is that over decades, the State, the Federal Government, the cities and agencies within California have worked to deal with a framework for addressing this kind of situation, and the bill, as it is constituted, would change that.

All my amendment does is give some assurance to communities that in the event that there are water transfers that their particular water budgets would not be affected.

I think it is a reasonable assurance to give. I think the author of the bill might suggest it is already there. If it is, let's codify it, and it will make the bill much better to provide that assurance to cities, counties, agencies and the State that has worked so hard for developing a framework for dealing with this very situation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source