Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California's drought is nature's fault, but our failure to prepare for it is our fault.
In California, the ruling Democrats have not only obstructed the construction of new dams for the past 35 years but they have also actively sought to tear down existing ones. They have substituted conservation for desperately needed storage, and now that we face drought, we find that our few reservoirs are empty, and our conservation options are already exhausted.
Worse, in the first years of this drought, 1.6 million acre-feet of water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the care and amusement of the delta smelt. Mr. Chairman, 800,000 acre-feet--enough for 4 million Californians--was deliberately drained from our now empty reservoirs just several months ago, knowing that that water was desperately needed to support the threatened human population. Part of that water was taken from Central Valley farmers, who now face economic extinction. This bill corrects these tragic policies.
It is true, we cannot make it rain, but we can take measures to stop this lunacy, increase storage capacity, reinforce existing water rights, and ensure that we never again must face a crisis of this magnitude.
This bill allows for the expansion of Lake McClure by 70,000 acre-feet. It gives local water agencies the ability to store additional water at New Melones. It sets deadlines for additional storage. It authorizes local water districts to partner with the Federal Government to expedite expansion of existing reservoirs and construction of new ones, and it reverses the policies that put the delta smelt ahead of the needs of thousands of farmworkers and millions of consumers.
Now, the people responsible for these policies say that this steals water from northern California. It does not. This is only water that would otherwise be lost to the Pacific Ocean. This bill restores the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that guarantees the delta the water that it needs and grants a portion of any excess to the Central Valley. This historic accord was broken when Central Valley water was expropriated for the delta smelt. This bill restores that accord while making provisions to increase the overall supply.
The other outlandish charge is that this measure overrides State water rights. It does exactly the opposite. It specifically protects State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or Federal.
We have listened to the environmental left for 40 years, and this is where it has gotten us. It is time to reject these voices and return to the commonsense and proven policies of abundance that produced the prosperity that we once enjoyed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 174-250 when the gen tle lady introduced it in 2012, and it deserves a similar fate on the floor today. Let's be clear about what it does.
It singles out Central Valley Project participants who pay their Federal loans off early to a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. Their surtaxes will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. Now, the Central Valley Project was already singled out for a punitive tax--about $50 million annually--by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of environmental slush funds.
I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of water projects but that they should pay only the costs of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they are dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, they leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that is who we would be singling out for this special tax. That tax is then paid in only one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices.
I have a modest suggestion. Perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business.
I have often criticized the gen tle lady and her colleagues for policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but this proposal does so quite directly and dramatically. I think that is why so many of her colleagues on the Democratic side abandoned her 2 years ago and why they would be well advised to do so again.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be obvious to everyone that, once you have paid off a loan, you don't keep paying interest on that loan. Why? Because you have already paid it off. That is what every project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation does. When they are given permission to prepay the loan--to pay off the loan just the way you would pay off your home loan early--they no longer are charged interest for it.
The gen tle lady would single out the Central Valley--and the Central Valley alone--for this punitive surtax. I have often wondered why the policy seemed to be aimed at the Central Valley. I don't know what it is that my friends in the opposition have against the thousands of farmworkers whose livelihoods depend upon farming in that region, but they have been waging war on that hapless and helpless group for far too long. This is another example of singling them out for a special punitive tax paid by no one else in all of the Bureau of Reclamation experience.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issue surrounding this bill: What comes first--families or fish?
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated for fish and wildlife purposes. That water came out of the allocations for the Central Valley that all sides had agreed to. At the time, it was promised that the water would be replaced. That promise is unfulfilled to this day.
Worse, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather than as a ceiling. In the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Department of the Interior preempted State water rights and ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of California.
This bill reestablished the 800,000 acre-foot allotment agreed to by all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised: ``A deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and the provision that the gen tle lady is offering would have us delete that provision.
I might add that, also under this bill, the 800,000 acre-feet can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. To those who tell us they like recycling, this is the ultimate recycling bill. I might also point out that an amendment that had a very similar effect 2 years ago was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 178-247 in this House. I would recommend that we do so again today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, like Tennyson's rotting mackerel in the moonlight, this amendment shines and stinks.
It states the obvious: the bill will not harm delta drinking water supplies. Well, of course it won't. After all, the delta counties are senior to the Central Valley in their water rights and so they have first call on that water. Under this bill, no agency of the State or Federal Government can take that right away.
Furthermore, under this bill, the delta counties can also reuse environmental water that otherwise would have been lost to the ocean, making this the ultimate water recycling bill.
This bill in no way affects the quality of drinking water in the delta or anywhere else. The proof of that is the fact that in the years following adoption of the Bay Delta Accord, which H.R. 3964 merely restores, never was it suggested by any water agency that drinking water or agricultural water was adversely affected in any way, shape, or form.
By placing this provision in the bill, it immediately opens it up to litigation that could tie it up in the courts for years. The mere allegation by a single litigant, no matter how outlandish, no matter how contorted, could stall these vitally needed reforms. It would also give this administration the ability to claim a right to nullify this law based on such a fiction.
A few years ago, when Central Valley water was being diverted for the delta smelt, I confronted the Secretary of the Interior in the Natural Resources Committee. I pointed out that with thousands of farmworkers unemployed, with a quarter-million acres of prime farmland destroyed, with food lines in the agricultural capital of the West, with unemployment in some of these communities reaching 45 percent, he had the authority to suspend the diversions and restore that water to the Valley to stop this human tragedy. He acknowledged that he had that authority, but he wouldn't use it, he said, because doing so ``would be like admitting failure.''
The amendment before us would give the same administration the excuse to ignore reality and act on ideological whim.
When this amendment was offered 2 years ago, it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of 177-243 in this House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to impose yet another environmental study that could lead to more water being diverted away from families and farmers and flushed out into the ocean. If you support throwing more stored water out to the ocean and making this crisis worse, then this amendment is another step toward that end.
Now, those who speak of ``resiliency'' and ``adaptability'' are using these terms to propose that dams evacuate more water storage earlier in the water year to account for faster snowmelt from the mountains and rain-based inflows. Now, just today, the East Bay Express reported that water managers deliberately dumped 800,000 acre-feet--as I said earlier, enough for 4 million Californians--into the Pacific Ocean that they knew was desperately needed as the drought continued to worsen.
Folsom Lake, the principal source of water storage for Sacramento and its suburbs, is nearly empty now because of those releases. We watched the Sacramento River at full flood all autumn and wondered what in the world were they thinking.
The fact is a hydrology consensus does not exist on this, and we should not be asking the GAO to investigate terms that are based on a lack of scientific consensus.
This amendment does nothing to restore water that continues to be lost to punitive Federal regulations and may, in fact, contribute to new regulatory overreach.
Californians are in a drought crisis now. It is time for action, not another bureaucratic study with no end in sight. This is why we must not impose studies in this bill or create steps to further erode water storage. We need to build more storage and capture more water, and that is precisely what this bill does. This bill is aimed at implementing a permanent solution to California's water crises so we can put people back to work permanently and restore balance back to California's water supply.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for making the point. I want people to look at the pictures of the empty reservoir at Folsom, the near-empty reservoir at Oroville and remember 800,000 acre-feet that could have been retained behind those dams was released by water officials for the environmental regulations that the gentleman defends. I think people need to reflect on that water that should right now be sitting behind those dams but for these regulations and realize what is exacerbating this terrible drought.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and neighbor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my objection to this amendment is similar to others of its ilk. It would allow litigation to block implementation of this bill indefinitely. There is, of course, nothing in this bill that would interfere with the State's water bond or its groundwater monitoring or groundwater conservation. Indeed, it will improve groundwater conservation since it brings balance back to surface water deliveries and restores the incentives for groundwater recharging.
The poison pill is not only the prospect of indefinite delay based upon the allegation of a single individual that can find the ear of a sympathetic judge. It is introducing the subjective standard of coequal goals for the delta.
The term ``coequal goals'' is something that is subjective. A term like this is subject to litigation not only at the State level but will be used as a means, if this amendment is adopted, to litigate this bill and delay the balance that it restores.
That balance was established by the bipartisan Bay Delta Accord that was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement to serve the coequal goals of human prosperity and environmental protection. When that agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all parties that ``a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government.'' The water diversions for the delta smelt, based upon the same opportunity to litigate that this amendment renews, shattered that promise. This bill redeems it. The amendment should be rejected.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what Mr. McClintock said. This is designed to kill the bill. This is a sneaky little lawyer amendment designed for litigation. This amendment, Valadao amendment, stops all litigation and gives back the people of California their water, and it quits wasting water. That is what this does.
I can understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to talk about the little 3-inch fish, which, I guess it has a little brain now. Well, it is a bait fish; of course it has a little brain.
The folks you have to ask yourselves about are the ones who come down here and talk about State preemptions when they know the Endangered Species Act is a preemption. They know what passed in 1992 was a State preemption. They know what passed in 2009 was a State preemption. Sneaky little lawyers all over the place.
Money, Mr. Chairman, money. It is about money. It is about NRDC. NRDC has made millions of dollars that we still cannot get an accounting for. Mr. Chairman, I want to know, how much money has NRDC made off of bringing water lawsuits in the State of California? Millions. Millions and millions and millions. That is what this amendment is designed to do, is to create jobs for lawyers. That is what this is about.
So I would advise and ask my colleagues to kill this amendment by voting ``no.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has it exactly backwards. This prevents water from being stolen from northern California in violation of State water rights. It strengthens the water rights that exist in current law. It means that water cannot be stolen from northern California even by the State itself.
This amendment offered by my friend is a variation of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera) earlier. It gives the Secretary of the Interior the ability to suspend most provisions of this law until she certifies it will have no adverse effect on delta agricultural water. Well, the same points apply. Despite the fact that this bill strengthens water rights in which the delta is senior to the Central Valley, this bill would give the Secretary, on whim, the power to ignore this law even in wet years, an authority her predecessor has already emphatically proven can and will be abused.
I will challenge the gentleman to cite one example of a complaint that agricultural water in the delta was adversely affected during all the years the Bay Delta Accord was in effect. This bill merely restores the Bay Delta Accord while strengthening northern California water rights. If he cannot cite even one example, he must admit that this amendment is a hoax designed to nullify the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, California has been plagued by litigation and regulation, delay and obfuscation on its water policy, and we are now living with the result of that.
The gentleman offers us an amendment that is more of the same--in fact, in this case, delaying the bill until the Federal Government measures the water content of clouds. Enough is enough. It is a time now for action, and this bill calls for action.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source