The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3189) to prohibit the conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use agreement on the transfer, relinquishment, or other impairment of any water right to the United States by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, with Ms. Foxx in the chair.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3189, a contradictory piece of legislation that would confuse the issue of water rights across the country.
As initially written, this bill, which attempts to solve a dispute between Colorado ski resorts and the U.S. Forest Service, was so broad that it would have impacted the permitting process for the Conowingo dam in Maryland and our local efforts to restore threatened species in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. While I appreciate that the Manager's amendment narrowly addresses the issue of dam permitting, I remain concerned that contradictory sections in this bill will create confusion and litigation that will prevent agencies from ensuring proper stewardship of federal lands.
When private entities request permits to operate on public lands, federal agencies have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that their operations would not harm the resources on those lands. If agencies cannot guarantee protections, they may simply deny permits and prohibit private use. This bill, by attempting to rewrite years of water rights law in a few short pages, introduces so much uncertainty into the process that those denials are likely to become a common occurrence.
Congressman Polis has offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would restore the narrow focus on the disputed ski resort water rights. I urge my colleagues to support his effort and oppose the bill as currently written.