Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about 3-inch fish in this debate. In fact, to hear my colleagues in the Republican Party tell it, this is a story of a 3-inch fish that is taking water away in this critical drought that should be allocated to people.

Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, you would have to have the brain of a 3-inch fish to believe that narrative. There is no such thing happening in this critical drought year. What is happening, however, is some people are cynically trying to capitalize on the worst drought in California history in order to steal water from some parts of the State and from other water users and give it to a few. In fact, if this bill were accurately named, it would be called the ``Massive Federal Preemption Overreach and Water Theft Act for the Elections of 2014,'' but it is, in fact, pretending to be something quite different.

We need to ask ourselves why the State of California is so passionately opposing this bill. Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote a letter just yesterday following the same position that prior attorneys general have always taken on this issue, including Republican attorneys general, that the Federal Government should abide by the 100-year precedent of deference, of cooperative Federalism, letting California administer its own water rights and allocate that water instead of the sweeping preemption that we see in this bill.

This bill would upset the most basic tenets of California water law. The fact that the California constitution provides the State the ability to allocate water, the ability to administer things like the public trust doctrine, all of that is repealed and swept away by the preemption provisions in this bill. It doesn't have to be that way.

In a crisis like this, it actually is possible for Republicans and Democrats and people from all parts of the State to come together and solve problems. I know that because I was part of something just like that that happened in our last multiyear critical drought. I chaired the Water Committee in the State Assembly in 2009 when there was a historic water package passed, a package that was supported by Republicans and Democrats, signed by a Republican Governor, supported by people from inland Central Valley California, southern California, urban areas. National media like The New York Times called it the most significant water reform in California in 60 years.

Well, unfortunately, all of that, too, is repealed, just swept away by the overreaching preemption in this bill.

The amendment I am offering, Mr. Chairman, would say, at least let's save what the national media and just about everybody else in the water world had called the most important thing, the best thing to happen in California water in the last 60 years. Let's save that from preemption as this bill goes forward if the amendment is made in order, and I would request that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the public trust doctrine and the coequal goals articulated in that 2009 California legislation are the centerpieces of California water. Without those coequal goals codified in that State law, the entire Bay Delta conservation plan is over. It is done. It has zero chance of success.

Without the public trust doctrine and other State laws in critical years where a fully allocated and appropriated system like we have in California, where tough balancing decisions have to be made by the State water board, without those basic tools for how to do that job, they can't do their job. They can't allocate a diminishing resource, and the entire system of water and water rights allocation is thrown into chaos.

So to hear my friend talk about his concern for litigation, I have to say, this is the recipe for endless litigation, confusion, and uncertainty in California. This is essentially throwing a grenade into California water that would ignite a water war unlike anything we have ever seen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the gentleman from California is.

Mr. HUFFMAN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply request a ``yes'' vote. It doesn't have to be partisanship. It doesn't have to be taking water from one part of the State or from one set of users and giving it to the other, scapegoating the 3-inch fish.

There is actually a way to solve water problems, even in California where water is scarce. We did it in 2009. It was widely recognized as historic, important, and positive. Let's save those 2009 water reforms from being roadkill from this reckless piece of legislation and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, some of the water impacted by this bill is critically needed by tribes in my district. This bill explicitly waives State and Federal law in a way that almost certainly would lead to additional diversions from the Trinity River, which would undermine tribal fishing and water rights.

The Yurok Tribe in my district has written about provisions in this bill that they would undermine the Federal Government's ability to meet its Federal trust obligation to protect, preserve, and enhance the trust resources of that tribe.

This House has an obligation to clarify that this cynical bill would not diminish any protected tribal water and fishing rights, and so I urge a ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very, very clear with my colleagues. California water issues go back to the very beginning of the State, the Gold Rush, and as they have said, whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting.

Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to solve the current crisis in California. What it does, it sets in motion a series of pieces of legislation that will unravel 150 years of California water law and set in place extraordinary chaos.

It does deliver water from one area to another area, literally stealing that water and giving it to others.

It does override the California State Constitution and what we call the Public Trust Doctrine, that is, the water of California belongs to all the people of California. It is allocated by law, by precedent, and by water rights that are allocated. This overrides that.

We don't want the Federal Government to go there if you care anything about your State, about the water in your State, and about your community. We need a long-term and short-term solution.

Fortunately, in the omnibus bill, we did reinstate the Federal drought protection drought response act. We have many of the tools in place to deal with the drought today. What we don't have is money.

I would ask the majority to put up a bill that delivers the money to carry out what is already in the law, which we did just 2 weeks ago.

Unfortunately, this bill puts in place a new water war which we do not and cannot have at a time when we need to come together to solve California water problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source