Nunes Comments On San Joaquin River Dispute

Nunes comments on San Joaquin river dispute

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) today issued the following statement, which follows an effort on Tuesday to resolve the long-standing San Joaquin River dispute in Congress.

"Yesterday, House negotiators had agreed to move forward with a compromise on the San Joaquin River dispute. An offer was made to the Senate, which was based on the goals articulated by the Settlement Agreement. That offer was rebuffed out of hand. What followed was an effort by some to mischaracterize the compromise language I crafted and to malign my efforts. As a result, we will not be able to resolve this dispute prior to adjournment.

I made a commitment to my district that I would do my best to achieve passage of an agreement prior to adjournment. My only condition was that the agreement needed to consider more than the narrow interests of the settling parties. Yesterday, I got a compromise to the finish line but the Senate deliberately fumbled it.

I think it is important to clarify that the offer made by the House yesterday, which was based on my proposal, is a superior end product for the people of California and the United States. The Settlement Agreement, as currently drafted, fails to address significant issues resulting from the San Joaquin river restoration. The agreement does not require the replacement of lost water; has serious implications for groundwater (both in terms of overdraft and water quality); and ignores impacts on local governments and other third parties. In short, while much progress has been made, the Settlement Agreement is by no means an acceptable end product. It needs refining and that's exactly what my proposal does.

We can restore the river and provide lasting environmental benefits to the region but we need to do so in a way that recognizes the consequences of water losses. Signing on the dotted line and closing our eyes to these problems, in the vain hope that we can work them out later, is not acceptable. The stakes are too high.

As a result of yesterday's actions, I will be returning to my district to make certain that area farmers and community leaders fully appreciate and prepare for the pending economic and environmental catastrophe that looms before us. There is no other way to describe the Settlement Agreement, absent any change. I plan to continue my meetings with farmers, as well as city councilmen and county supervisors. We will talk about who will be losing water, which wells may go dry and whose farmland will be retired. We will also have to discuss the larger economic problems on the horizon, including what businesses may not be able to survive.

Indeed, despite earlier statements to the contrary, supporters of the Settlement Agreement are now admitting 50,000 acres will have to be retired from agriculture production as a result of lost water. Some have suggested more than 100,000 aces would be lost. Furthermore, independent studies conducted in the late 1990's suggest more than a 172,000 acres could be forced out of production. That equates to 268 square miles of productive agriculture land. The truth probably lies between these numbers. However, we know that land will have to be fallowed. City and county governments will also be forced to face the consequences of reduced supplies, increased pumping and long-term water quality challenges.

We have a lot of work to do in preparation for the consequences of the proposed Settlement Agreement. The people of the Central Valley need to be aware about what is coming if a compromise can't be reached."

http://www.house.gov/nunes/press/2006/dec/120606SJRDebate.htm