California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.

Some of our colleagues from other States may be experiencing a sense of deja vu right now. Yes, this is the second time this year that the House has voted on a California water bill that would harm northern California fisheries, tribes, and communities; that would undermine State law; that would deprive water managers of the flexibility they need; and it would micromanage the complex water system of California.

To make sure we are all dealing with the same facts, I want to remind my colleagues that the State and Federal water export pumps in the delta right now are operating at more than 5,000 cubic feet per second.

The only reason they are not pumping even faster is not to protect fish and wildlife, not because of the Endangered Species Act, none of the other bogeymen that we hear as a justification for this bill. No, the reason those pumps are not going even faster is because of standards set by the State of California to protect water quality from municipal and industrial and agricultural and other uses in the system.

So the only way that this bill could deliver more water today--well, there is no way it could deliver more water today--and the only way it could deliver more water in other times of the year is by taking it away from other water users and other beneficial uses in our State.

With that inconvenient fact out of the way, let's talk about the process that brought us here today. H.R. 5781 has never been reviewed by the authorizing committee, let alone marked up in open session. Nor have we received the input of State or Federal agencies that have the responsibility over clean water and fisheries management. Nor have we received the input of affected local water agencies, of commercial and recreational fishing interests, of tribes--including ones that I represent--or other communities that will surely be impacted negatively if this were to become law.

The proponents of this bill say that it is the result of bipartisan collaboration. Really? Those of us who represent northern California's fishing industries, tribes, farmers, and communities have been systematically kept out of the room and even kept out of the conversation.

Last month, we learned that members of our State's Republican delegation refused to even brief Senator Barbara Boxer if northern California Democrats like me were even in the room.

This is no way to negotiate something this important. It is a terrible precedent for other States as well, and that is why I am glad that Senator Boxer has been so clear in stating her opposition to it, that it would ignite water wars in California, not solve problems, and I am glad that over the weekend we received a veto recommendation from the Obama administration.

Now, on Saturday, the Pacific Fishery Management Council sent me a letter about the bill. I asked them how they felt it would affect western fisheries in this country. Here is what they said:

H.R. 5781 would override Endangered Species Act protections for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the Bay Delta in order to allow increased pumping from the delta in excess of scientifically justified levels.

In 2008 and 2009, $158 million in congressional aid was provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean salmon fisheries off California and Oregon south of Cape Falcon due to a collapse of the Sacramento River salmon stocks. These fisheries are an important source of jobs for coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Speaker, I will include this letter in the Record at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. If we did have the benefit of a hearing or even just an opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to address some of these, but so far, nobody has answered some of these key technical questions.

First, does the bill allow the State water board, basically, to do its job if we head into a fourth year of a critical drought, doing things like issuing curtailment orders and possibly rationing orders? These are tough calls that our State's water referee has to make. This bill does not appear to allow them the flexibility to do that.

Does the bill, which directs the Federal Government to ``provide the maximum quantity of water supplies possible'' next year, allow the Federal Government to do other things necessary to operate the system, like filling reservoirs, holding water for public health purposes, or--when it might be needed--even for other water contractors?

Does the bill put additional pressure on the Trinity River, which I represent, and the tribes that have depended on it for their traditions and their subsistence on healthy salmon populations for millennia?

There are many other questions that are unanswered about this bill. It is not ready for prime time, it is not good policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source