Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It was just last winter that we were here on the House floor talking about another so-called drought bill that my Republican colleagues were attempting to slam through the House within just a few days of its introduction.
This time the bill has a different title, but it is pretty much the same bill. We are back today to consider yet another bill that harms West Coast fisheries and tribal interests, another bill that undermines State law, another bill that micromanages the most complex water system in the world in a way that benefits a select few at the expense of many others across the State of California, another bill that is going nowhere.
We have a SAP from the administration. We have a withering three-page letter of opposition critiquing the bill from the Department of the Interior. The two largest circulation papers in California have both editorialized against it. The State of California is on record opposing prior versions of this bill.
Now, unlike last year, when the House did not allow any amendments to the bill, we are here today with 4 out of 5 Republican amendments made in order and 4 out of 24 Democratic amendments made in order.
That may seem like marginal progress over the 113th Congress' very closed process, but that is no way to do business and certainly no way to get a bill signed into law. With something as complicated and important as California water, we really should make sure everyone has a say, and that is what Democrats have attempted to do. We have introduced a drought response bill, H.R. 2983, which is a comprehensive drought bill. It brings everyone to the table.
This bill had 6 weeks of public review before even being formally introduced, resulting in substantial crowdsource changes to the bill. Our water future deserves that kind of open debate and real solutions.
I have been joined by 34 cosponsors on that bill because it provides both short- and long-term investments in water supply reliability, the kind of tools that all Western States will need.
My bill includes significant resources to support farmworkers and others who
[Page: H5244]
are out of work, not just lipservice. And I submit that if my Republican colleagues really care about the challenges faced by farmworkers and others affected by this drought, they will join us in backing real solutions that provide meaningful assistance in addition to stretching our limited water supplies.
Our bill is supported by the Association of California Water Agencies, California sanitation agencies, numerous other water agencies, environmental groups and stakeholders, and both the L.A. Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have editorialized in favor of the Democratic alternative drought response bill and opposed to the bill we are considering here today.
Mr. Chairman, let's have some hearings. Despite the importance of this issue, we have held no legislative hearings on drought responses in the 114th Congress, not on the majority's bill, not on my alternative.
Let's have hearings on both bills. Let's see which one produces the most water, which one produces that water more quickly, and which one produces it more cost-effectively and more reliably.
I hope that someday, Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing real water solutions in that spirit, vetted in an open hearing, that can actually produce something that will be signed into law, instead of the same tired, divisive ideas that pit our State's water users against each other.
Now, a lot of people have asked me: Why do your Republican colleagues refuse to have serious hearings on their water proposal? I think the answer is pretty clear. Like its predecessors, we are here considering a bill that, when it is exposed to public scrutiny, simply falls apart.
Here's what the Department of the Interior said last week in a letter to our committee, in lieu of testimony, of course, because there was no legislative hearing on the bill. They said: ``Instead of increasing water supplies, H.R. 2898 dictates operational decisions and imposes an additional new legal standard. Instead of saving water, this could actually limit water supplies by creating new and confusing conflicts with existing laws, thereby adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to Federal and State project operations. As a result of this additional standard, we believe H.R. 2898 will slow decisionmaking, generate significant litigation, and limit the real-time operational flexibility that is so critical to maximizing water delivery.''
Although the Pacific Fishery Management Council wasn't given an opportunity to actually testify on this bill, again, because we had no hearings, they opposed last year's version, and they wrote to us this week to say that they are on record on what appears to be similar legislation. Specifically, they are concerned about the bill's provisions that redirect water away from salmon habitat.
The closure of the West Coast salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009 required $158 million in Federal disaster relief. And, sadly, the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on our amendment to require a full Pacific Fishery Management Council review of this legislation.
There is no question that this bill explicitly preempts State water law, and it waives and weakens the application of bedrock Federal environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and NEPA, but the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on my amendment to protect California water law from preemption nor my amendment to strengthen the water rights protections in the bill. It seems that the issue of states' rights is simply an inconvenient subject when it comes to Republican water legislation.
Mr. Chairman, water is a complex subject, but it doesn't have to be partisan combat. It doesn't have to scapegoat environmental laws or pit one region against the other in a zero-sum game.
I chaired the California Assembly's Water Committee during the last drought in 2009, and we did it the right way. We held lots of hearings. We brought interests from all over the State together and, in the end, although it was a lot of work, through that deliberative, transparent process we produced comprehensive water legislation that was supported by Republicans and Democrats from all corners of the State.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, a near unanimous California legislature agreed on a multibillion-dollar water bond that has created significant water reforms in full public view. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would just give up on the idea of ramming the same divisive ideas through Congress every few months, we too might be able to make some progress on solving water problems.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The alternative vision that we offer is certainly not one of austerity and sacrifice; it is one of reality.
There was a time when the reclamation program from the Federal Government proceeded on the assumption that rain follows the plow. It was completely wishful, completely delusional, and we seem to be hearing vestiges of that old argument even today.
What Democrats offer are real solutions--solutions that have been underfunded by Republicans for too many years, solutions that will generate more water and more water supply reliability than the Republican alternative we are considering.
We continue to hear representations that are simply not correct. The claim that we haven't built a major reservoir in California since 1979, tell that to the folks that built Los Vaqueros Reservoir or Diamond Valley Reservoir or many others.
We hear that the doubling of the population in the last few decades is what is driving this crisis. Well, in fact, the urban centers where that population has doubled have held their demand flat. The population has gone up. The water consumption has not.
We continue to hear that this bill--remarkably, we continue to hear that it doesn't preempt State law. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would refer you simply to the CBO report at page 2, which recognizes that H.R. 2898 would impose intergovernmental mandates by preempting the ability of the State of California to enforce its own water management and wildlife preservation laws. There is no question that this bill preempts State laws, and saving money by telling Federal agencies they no longer have to comply with State laws is no way to make public policy.
[Page: H5245]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the delta region California (Mr. McNerney). He has been a champion on sustainable management of our water resources, and I am pleased to have him with us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, by way of clarification, the opposition does not oppose addressing invasive species that may have impacts on our fisheries.
What we do agree with, though, is all of the serious science, including peer-reviewed science, that finds that water diversions are the main challenge and the main impact. And we cannot ignore the elephant in the room when we are talking about recovering our fisheries.
As for this claim that there was some kind of a hearing in the Valley, Mr. Chairman, not in this Congress and not a real hearing.
It doesn't count when you have a Republican swing through Fresno with a fundraiser and a rally and a press event and no Democratic ranking members in
[Page: H5246]
attendance. That is not serious deliberation.
We are talking about real hearings where diverse witnesses and water experts and lots of Democrats get to participate in a serious and meaningful way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of our Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the T&I Committee, a champion on water issues for many, many years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, more clarification is needed. We continue to hear about this legendary 3-inch fish that is apparently taking so much water from Californians.
Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are that, over the last 2 years, that 3-inch fish has taken exactly zero water from those who depend on water diverted out of the delta system.
As for employment levels, certainly folks are hurting from this drought throughout California and in other Western States.
But with reference to agricultural employment, thanks to the incredible productivity of our farmers in California, ag employment was actually up 2 percent last year, another stubborn fact that needs to be remembered so that we can get the context of this bill right.
I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), our distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to cite testimony from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service before the State water board just a few months ago, February 18, 2015, in which they testified the delta smelt biological opinion has not required mandatory restrictions on water exports since early 2013, over 2 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), my distinguished colleague from Fresno.
I do not agree with him on this particular bill, but I do want to say that he has been a champion for his district and certainly has great command of the water issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have a bill, unfortunately, that would run roughshod over California State law with respect to water, with respect to the management of wildlife.
It is a bill that would do harm to the Endangered Species Act and other environmental Federal laws. It is a bill that would, indeed, ignite a water war rather than seriously solve problems on this important issue.
Don't take it from me. Take it from other serious voices that have examined this bill and the Democratic alternative. Take it from the Los Angeles Times. Take it from the San Francisco Chronicle. Take it from the Department of the Interior and from the Obama administration, which has issued a veto threat.
[Time: 10:30]
This is the same bill that has passed on party lines each of the last few years, only to be parked in the Senate and go nowhere. It is high time that we start talking to each other and working with each other on serious, bipartisan solutions for our water challenges instead of playing party politics. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply aligns the bill with the recently signed MOU with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding these studies. We do not oppose it. It is consistent with an earlier policy rider added to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Contrary to some of the things we have heard in this debate, I and other Democrats are not standing in the way of these storage studies. The delta smelt and the environmental laws are not standing in the way of these storage studies.
In fact, my own drought bill, H.R. 2983, provides crucial funding and direction to the Bureau of Reclamation to finish CALFED feasibility studies that have the financing possible to be completed within the next 10 years.
We do support finishing these studies. Now, some of these projects may pencil out, but I think it has become clear over the many, many years these studies have languished that some of these projects have turned into zombie reservoirs which won't go away because project proponents have never been forced to fully account for how their financing will actually work.
Many of these projects will not pencil out, but it is high time that we complete the studies, face the reality, and get the information so that we can move on with real water solutions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the author for his concern about waterfowl and wildlife. This amendment, by itself, is not harmful, but it is important to acknowledge that it doesn't come close to curing the problems with this bill that are, in fact, very harmful to fish and wildlife.
The gentleman's amendment seeks to provide cover in some ways to proponents of this bill who are now coming under fire from the California Waterfowl Association and other sportsmen's groups because this bill hurts migratory birds and other wildlife and waterfowl.
The California Waterfowl Association is on record opposing this bill because: ``It would eliminate water supplies for California migratory waterfowl and other wetlands-dependent species.''
Other sportsmen's groups also oppose. Trout Unlimited has spoken out against the bill because it would weaken protections for steelhead and salmon.
While I do not oppose this bill, it is important not to suggest that this bill is somehow good for or supported by hunters or sportsmen's groups. It is not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am the other neighbor on this Klamath-Trinity water system. I didn't have the benefit of working with my colleagues on this legislation.
My hope, as we go forward, is that we could be a little more neighborly and try to talk with each other and work together on this system that affects our mutual constituents.
Mr. Chair, as if the underlying bill, which includes numerous assaults on the Endangered Species Act, is not bad enough, unfortunately, this is an amendment that would make it even worse.
It plays favorites among stakeholders, elevating agriculture above all else at the expense of the environment and other cultural and economic interests.
As if the Klamath water contractors don't have things good enough with taxpayer-subsidized water and zero-interest loans, this amendment seeks to give them special status and significantly more leverage during the Endangered Species Act consultation process.
As long as the project is in place, the Bureau of Reclamation has a duty to manage it for the benefit of all stakeholders. That is important.
The interests of the water contractors are certainly no more legitimate than those of the Klamath tribes for whom endangered fish are part of their cultural heritage, nor are they more important than the interests of commercial and recreational fishermen, who generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy and continue to wait patiently for the restoration of fish stocks vital to their livelihoods.
In addition to being a bad deal for tribes and fishermen, this amendment is yet another attempt by House Republicans to drive the extinction of American fish and wildlife one species at a time.
Let's be honest. Giving agricultural interests privileged status in ``helping'' to determine the fate of endangered coho salmon and endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers is nothing short of a death sentence for those species.
It is past time for my colleagues across the aisle to stop blaming the Endangered Species Act for all of their ills. Fish did not cause the drought, and killing them will not make it go away.
The better solution is to make water use more sustainable for Californians and the environment that they cherish.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source