Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004

SNAKE RIVER WATER RIGHTS ACT OF 2004

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I say to Senator CAMPBELL, as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee upon which I serve, I appreciate his leadership in helping this important bill become law. I support S. 2605 and believe it codifies a fair and equitable settlement of Snake River Basin water rights in Idaho. However, I am concerned that the bill currently pending before the Senate may have inadvertently altered the rights of my constituents and obligations of the downstream States of Washington and Oregon in the application and implementation of Federal environmental laws.

Therefore, I have a few questions to ask regarding the effect of section 4 of S. 2605 and the agreement, as expressed in the Mediator's Term Sheet, that S. 2605 would approve. Specifically, I am concerned about (1) whether some inference might be drawn from the language in section 4(a) of the act that, by approving, ratifying and confirming the agreement, Congress has in effect altered the obligation of Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; (2) whether the act might be interpreted to require that Federal agencies implement the agreement without taking into consideration the interests of other affected States; and (3) whether the act or the agreement might be construed to alter any obligations that the parties might have under the Clean Water Act, particularly in relation to the protection of federally approved State water quality standards of downstream States.

I noticed that these three specific issues were not expressly addressed in the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs that has been filed and accompanies the substitute amendment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. These three issues were not specifically addressed in the report issued by the committee, although the part of the report that discusses the meaning of section 4(a) of the substitute amendment does make the point, and fairly clearly I think, that there is no intent to alter or amend Federal environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act or to somehow limit the rights of persons or organizations to pursue any remedies that are otherwise available to them under such laws. The three precise issues you mention were not deliberately omitted from discussion in the report-to the contrary, they were not discussed in the report simply because those specific issues, as you have articulated them, were not aired during or after the hearing held on this legislation and, in fact, arose only after the amendment in the nature of a substitute was reported to the Senate on October 7, 2004.

Ms. CANTWELL. As the principal sponsor and architect of the substitute amendment approved by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, what was the intent about the meaning of the substitute amendment and the agreement it would approve with respect to those three issues?

Mr. CAMPBELL. My intent with respect to all three of the issues that the Senator has mentioned is consistent with my intent regarding the meaning of section 4 of the substitute amendment and the agreement itself-that is, neither the substitute amendment nor the agreement should be interpreted to somehow restrict the rights of any State, person or organization to pursue remedies otherwise available under Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

I would point out that neither the substitute amendment nor the agreement should be read to create, enlarge or limit any obligation of Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Also, the intent behind the substitute amendment is that Federal agencies implement the terms of the agreement and any applicable Federal laws with due consideration of both the interests of the parties and those of other affected States so that no interests are prejudiced. Finally, neither the substitute amendment nor the agreement should be interpreted to create or alter any obligations of the parties under the Clean Water Act with respect to the protection of federally approved State water quality standards of downstream States. However, with that I do not mean to imply or suggest that any such obligations exist or do not exist.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for clarifying these important matters.