Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, I have great respect for my friend from the Sacramento Valley and the water users he represents, but I must rise in opposition to this amendment. However well-intentioned, it has two fatal flaws. The first is that it is completely unnecessary. Second, it directly interferes with the Federal court's ability to administer the law.

So let's start with the first one, the unnecessary part. It is true that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this pending litigation because these long-term Sacramento River contracts were signed on the basis of an invalidated biological opinion. But what my colleagues should know is that no party in this ongoing litigation is seeking to terminate water deliveries, nor is anybody asking for the immediate alteration or interruption of deliveries. The litigation has been going on for years, and my understanding is that there is no court action scheduled that could have any effect on water deliveries in the coming years.

If the contracts are ultimately changed to protect California salmon fisheries, that would be many years down the line, and the Sacramento River contractors will have the opportunity to negotiate changes directly with the Interior Department in a public process. That is how it works.

So this amendment puts us in a strange position of trying to bar the Bureau of Reclamation from terminating water deliveries that nobody has asked them to terminate in anticipation of a court order that nobody is seeking. It is completely unnecessary.

Second, this amendment interferes in a court case in a way that should worry all of us in this body. The amendment claims to be about preserving the status quo on the Sacramento River. That is all fine, but if that is the concern that contracts might be terminated--even though nobody is asking them to be terminated and they don't expire for another 30 years--why come to Congress?

The Sacramento River contractors are represented by astute and capable lawyers who could easily go to the court and seek interim relief to do this, and yet they have not sought that relief. Instead, they have come here to the House floor asking to be treated differently than every other Central Valley Project contractor. Seeking a rider to circumvent a court case that is still in its very preliminary stages is no way to make public policy. In fact, I am not aware of Congress ever taking an extraordinary step like this.

There have been many Endangered Species Act challenges to water contracts over the years in California. Never has a court simply vacated any contracts. In fact, even after finding the contracts invalid under the Endangered Species Act, courts have always given the agencies and the contractors time to do their work and renegotiate the terms without terminating anything in the interim. That is exactly what will happen in this case if we simply let the litigation play out, as we should.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Contra Costa County (Mr. George Miller), who has been such a leader on California water for his 40 years in the House of Representatives.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, California and the rest of the West are facing a historic drought right now. Nearly 80 percent of California was under extreme drought conditions in June, and 36 percent of our State is in ``exceptional'' drought in that category, the highest category, in fact, on the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Emergency water conservation plans are being adopted across the State, including many mandatory measures. Cities and counties are dealing with uncertain water supplies, farmers and ranchers are facing incredibly difficult decisions, and tribes and those who depend on healthy fisheries for their livelihood are facing shortages like they have never seen.

Congress can't make it rain. What we can do is invest in drought-resistant water supplies through smart, sustainable investments in conservation and water reuse, and that is what this amendment is all about.

My amendment directs $52 million to the Bureau of Reclamation for title XVI water conservation and reuse projects. Through this program, Reclamation works across the West to support municipalities, farmers, fish and wildlife, and recreation through water-saving conservation, reuse, and recycling infrastructure projects.

Although the Energy and Water bill before us today does fund the program, this drought is showing us that we have to do a lot more.

California's State water board is stepping up. They made an $800 million investment in water reuse projects earlier this year, but we on the Federal side should be able to add more to that. We should add $52 million to combat this urgent problem in California and other Western States.

This amendment is offset through a reduction in the Department of Energy's nuclear energy account. We have tough choices to make. I think we all understand that. Responding, however, to this drought should be a national priority.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Chair, we either believe that this critical drought in California and other Western States, the most extreme drought that many of us have seen in our lifetime, we either believe it is a national crisis and a national priority, or we don't.

A few months ago, House Republicans put forward a bill that represented itself as a response to this drought, and yet it offered no immediate relief to the folks who are suffering in California.

Instead, what it did is hack away at environmental laws and try to do some violence to 100 years of deference to State policy on water rights and otherwise pick winners and losers in ways that was not responsive to this drought.

What this amendment offers, though, is something that can make an immediate difference. The water that we save through conservation, the water that we can save in the years ahead through water recycling, is some of the firmest, most reliable, most cost-effective water that you can provide. It is one of the smartest investments you can make in a State like California.

We need it to respond to this drought, and we need it to make our water supplies more reliable and resilient for future droughts, which we know are coming with more severity and more frequency.

I will close by urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this important amendment which does respond to the critical drought that is facing California and other Western States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source