BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise again to express my strong opposition to H.R. 3964. This legislation will do tremendous harm to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, an area that I am privileged to represent.
Let's start with the facts. California is in a drought and is experiencing its driest year on record. Snowpacks are at about 13 percent of what they should be. Regions have set new records for consecutive dry days during the rainy season. Seventeen communities are at risk of running out of drinking water within 60 days. The National Drought Mitigation Center upgraded about 9 percent of California to an ``exceptional drought,'' the organization's most intense level of drought severity.
Yet, here we are again, spending time on a bill which, according to its authors, is only a short-term fix for a few communities and does nothing to help California in its water crisis. California's Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said that H.R. 3964 ``falsely holds the promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because in this drought, the water simply does not exist.'' Let me repeat that: ``the water simply does not exist.''
I know that the other side is going to vote unanimously for this bill, so I ask them to look and see what is inside of it. It is not in your interest. This takes away states' rights. This doesn't weigh a state's protections.
I ask people that live in the Great Lakes area and people that live in the Florida Everglades area: pay attention. This is a Federal precedent. It allows the Federal Government to come and take your water. Is that what you want? I don't think so.
So I ask the Members of the other side of the aisle, please consider what this bill contains, please vote the right way. We should be addressing water efficiency, storage, reuse and recycling, water management, innovative water projects, and a long-term approach to water shortages.
All H.R. 3964 ensures is that more water is shipped out of the delta, turning this precious estuary into a salty, stagnant marsh, devastating local economies, and costing the delta region thousands of jobs.
We should stand united in preventing this legislation from ever becoming law. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3964.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3964, which I urge all of my colleagues to support.
As my colleagues know, I am honored to represent the people of San Joaquin Delta. The delta is a precious resource that provides tremendous economic benefits to our entire State. Preserving the delta should be a priority for all of California.
Agriculture is the economic backbone of the delta region, generating about $3 billion of economic activity a year in my district. Three billion dollars is a lot of money for us, and our producers rely on high quality water for their products.
As currently written, H.R. 3964 will ship more water out of the delta, even though current shipments have already threatened the water quality for our delta farmers.
During debate on this legislation in the previous Congress, we were told that the bill was a great deal for the delta, and yet delta counties opposed the legislation then, and we still strongly oppose the legislation now. That is because this bill, as Governor Brown says, will mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others.
All of California is experiencing a drought that threatens nearly 82,000 farmers and ranchers in the State. We should not be pitting farmers against each other. Simply put, this bill will steal water from northern California and devastate water quality for delta farmers.
Farmers need freshwater, not saltwater, for their harvest. What my colleagues are saying is this: We have got the votes, we have got the money, let's go take the water; in other words, the doctrine of might makes right.
Mr. Chairman, we should follow established law and protect the rights of the delta farmers. That is why I am offering a simple amendment to make sure that the most harmful provisions of this bill do not take effect until the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture verify that water quality for agriculture in the delta region is not negatively affected.
Proponents of H.R. 3964 claim that the bill is pro-farmer, but this bill steals water from one part of California and gives it to another. If the authors of H.R. 3964 support farmers throughout the entire State, they should support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, our farmers are already experiencing saltwater intrusion. Saltwater levels are increasing. Shipping more water south of the delta is going to increase our saltwater concentration. This is a known, ongoing problem.
I ask my colleague, Mr. Chairman, that if he is confident that the bill will benefit California farmers, including delta farmers, then he should support my amendment, because that is exactly what we are asking it to do--to allow the Secretary of Agriculture and allow the Secretary of the Interior to make an assessment before water is shipped, lowering our quality.
So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close if the gentleman is.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, basically, I am asking my colleagues to give us a chance to make sure that our farmers are not damaged, our farmers are not hurt and that our $3 billion of economic activity is not curtailed in favor of a bill of doubtful quality. I think it is going to make a difference if we can just work together, find a solution that all the stakeholders can abide by and not resort to what appears to be a water steal.
I think my farmers are going to ask me to defend their water quality, and that is exactly what I am doing. If my colleagues are supporting defending the farmers and the rights of the farmers throughout the State, then they should support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT