Small Business Lending Fund Accountability Act of 2011

I thank the gentlewoman.

One hardly knows where to start, when you take California water law and push it aside and preempt it with Federal water law, really running over the top of the State of California, and then you steal 800,000 acre-feet and transfer it to your buddies--yes, you're going to come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense. But the reality is quite different.

Let us understand very clearly here that 150 years of California water law is thrown out and a new Federal law is put in place that preempts California water law. The 1994 CALFED agreement was an interim agreement. It was never, ever intended to be a permanent statutory agreement on how water would be delivered in California.

In addition to that, let me understand--yes, I see your little chart over there that you're going to throw up. That was 1994, and it said precisely what we ought to do today. And that is: today, we ought to be working together to solve the problems of California water. And guess what, California is.

But with this law in place, it won't happen. The ability of California to work together to solve its problems are thrown out. What sense does that make unless you want to steal 800,000 acre feet of water and take an agreement that was forged over 20 years ago to solve a problem on the San Joaquin River that is not for year-round salmon flows but only for the spring salmon flows. Why would you want to do that, except you want to take somebody's water?

The water is the water of the fishermen as well as the water of the farmers.

By the way, facts are ugly little things. There are no 3,000 people that lost their jobs, no 60,000 people that lost their jobs. The University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, Davis, and the University of the Pacific all say that the losses were less than 7,000, which almost equaled the loss of the fisheries.

When we get to the end of this story, it is going to be a story of the rest of the Nation. If you happen to be a Western State, if you happen to be a Midwestern State that has a Federal water project from the Bureau of Reclamation, beware, because this is the first-ever attempt to throw aside 100 years of reclamation law in which deference is given to the States over the power of their water rights and their water laws.

Yes, you can say section 4 of this bill deals with that. No, it doesn't. It does not deal with the totality of California law. In fact, the bill destroys that totality.

Western States are opposed to this. The list has been given. Other States, watch out. This is a power grab. This is a water grab. This is an imposition of the Federal authority over the States, and specifically over California.

Yes, Mr. Chairman--excuse me, if I might, through the Chair--you said that there is 100 percent water. No water district except those that preceded the Federal project have 100 percent allocation. Every other water district has shortage provisions in those water contracts.

By the way, whatever power we may have, we don't have the power to overcome a natural drought, which is precisely what is happening in California today and happened during the period that this bill speaks to. It was a natural drought. Yes, there were restrictions placed on the pumps, restrictions that were necessary to protect an endangered species.

By the way, the judge that you cited took a job 45 days after he quit with the water contractor that is supporting this bill. Figure it out yourself. Figure out what is going on here. This is a theft of 800,000 acre feet of environmental water. This is an overturning of California water law, and we ought not do it.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

If you know California water, you know that we can get pretty wound up about it, and the solution for California water is not to be found in this particular piece of legislation. Facts are difficult things to deal with, but they are facts. There has been no manmade drought. There was a very real drought. In addition to that, there were restrictions on the pumping.

Let us understand that the principal advocates of this bill have the shortest straw. They came last in line, and therefore they're not first--they're last. Their contract provided for shortage provisions for a variety of reasons, among them droughts and environmental restrictions. So they should have planned for that. Apparently, they did not.

The losses to the agricultural community were significant to be sure, but at the same time, the agricultural community in the Central Valley prospered, having the best years to any previous year that occurred during this drought period. Certain farmers were shorted--no doubt about that--but they had a contract that called for those shortages.

Now let us understand that this bill has profound implications on every State, some 21 States that have contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill, should it pass and become law, is a signal to every State that you cannot count on State law allocating the water within your district. Instead, it will be Congress that will allocate the water within your State. That is a profound change: 100 years of reclamation law are pushed aside by this piece of legislation. For the State of California, it is a total preemption of State law--a total preemption of State law--and the State constitution is pushed aside.

There is within the California constitution a thing called the ``public trust.'' The legislature and the government of California hold in trust for the people of California the water of California, and this legislation pushes that aside and gives that water to a very special group.

Groups Opposed to H.R. 1837

Statement of Administration Policy

U.S. Department of the Interior

State of Colorado

State of Montana

State of New Mexico

State of Oregon

State of Wyoming

Western States Water Council \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 18 member body, composed of governor-appointed

representatives from the 18 Western states. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elected Officials

California Secretary for Natural Resources

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

Congressman John Garamendi

Congressman Mike Honda

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren

Congresswoman Doris Matsui

Congressman Jerry McNerney

Congressman George Miller

Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

Congresswoman Jackie Speier

Congressman Mike Thompson

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Newspapers

The Sacramento Bee

The San Francisco Chronicle

The San Jose Mercury News

Water Districts and Local Governments

Central Delta Water Agency

City of Sacramento

City of Stockton

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

Contra Costa County

Grassland Water District

Reclamation District 999

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Sacramento County

San Joaquin Council of Governments

San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors

San Mateo County Harbor District

Solano County

South Delta Water Agency

South San Joaquin Irrigation District

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

Yolo County

Business and Civic Groups

BIA of the Delta

Business Council of San Joaquin County

California Delta Chambers & Visitor's Bureau

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton

The Contra Costa Council

Environmental Entrepreneurs

Hawkeye Marketing

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Stockton Chamber of Commerce

Environmental Groups

Alameda Creek Alliance

American Rivers

AquAlliance

Audubon

Battle Creek Alliance

The Bay Institute

Berkeley Conservation Institute

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Butte Environmental Council

California League of Conservation Voters

California Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility

California Save our Streams Council

California Water Impact Network

Cascade Action Now

Center for Biological Diversity

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation

Clean Water Action

Conservation Congress

Coast Action Group

Defenders of Wildlife

Desal Response Group

Earth Law Center

Earthjustice

Ebetts Pass Forest Watch

Endangered Habitats League

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Protection Information Center

Food and Water Watch

Foothills Conservancy

Forests Forever

Forest Unlimited

Friends of Butte Creek

Friends of the Calaveres

Friends of Del Norte

Friends of the Eel River

Friends of the Gualala River

Friends of the Lower Calavera River

Friends of the North Fork American River

Friends of the River

Humboldt Baykeeper

Institute for Fisheries Resources

KS Wild

Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper

Madrone Audubon

Merced River Conservation Committee

Mid-Klamath Watershed Council

Mono Lake Committeee

Monterey Coastkeeper

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature Abounds

The Nature Conservancy

Northcoast Environmental Center

North Coast Rivers Alliance

Northern California River Watch

Oceana

Oregon Waterwatch

Oregon Wild

The Otter Project

Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter

Planning and Conservation League

Protect our Water

The Public Trust Alliance

Redwood Regional Audubon Society

Restore Hetch Hetchy

Resource Renewal Institute

Restore the Delta

The River Project

Rocky Mountain Wild

Rose Foundation

Russian Riverkeeper

Russian River Watershed Protection Committee

Sacramento Audubon Society

Sacramento River Preservation Trust

Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment

San Francisco Bay Keeper

San Joaquin Audubon

Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition

Santa Clarita for Planning and the Environment

Santa Cruz Women's International League for Peace and

Freedom

Save the Bay

Save the Frogs!

Sierra Club California

Sierra Foothills Audubon

Sierra Nevada Alliance

Siskiyou Land Conservancy

South Fort Mountain Defense Committee

South Yuba River Citizens League

Southern California Watershed Alliance

Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance

Trust for Public Land

Tuolumne Conservancy

Tuolumne River Trust

Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth

United Outdoorsmen

Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Council

Waldo Holt Conservancy

Western Nebraska Resources Council

Whidbey Environmental Action Network

The Wilderness Society

Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Hunting Organizations and

Businesses

Ankeny Street Sportfishing

American Sportfishing Association

Auburn Flycasters

Back to Class Guide Service

Bob Sands Fishing

Bob Sparre's Guide Service

Bodega Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association

Bodega Bay Sportfishing

Boyce Image

California Inland Fisheries Foundation

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

California Striped Bass Association

California Striped Bass Association--Sacramento Chapter

California Striped Bass Association--West Delta Chapter

Checkmate Charters

Chris' Fishing Charters

Chubasco Charters

Coastside Fishing Club

Delta Fly Fishers

Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen

El Dorado III Charters

Emeryville Sportfishing

Fishery Foundation

Fish Sniffer

Flash Sportfishing Charters

Flying Fish Charters

Foothills Angler Coalition

Fred Hall Shows

Golden Gate Fishermen's Association

Golden Gate Salmon Association

Golden West Women Flyfishers

G. Pucci and Sons Manufacturing

Granite Bay Flycasters

Hi's Tackle Box

Hog Heaven Charters

Huck Finn Charters

Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers

Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association

Jim Cox Sport Fishing Charters

Johnson Hicks Marine

Kokanee Power

Leisure Sales

Lower Sherman Island Duck Hunters Association

Lovely Linda Sportfishing

Lovely Martha Charters

Lower Sherman Island Duck Club

Mission Peak Fly Anglers

Monterey Fish Market

New Captain Pete Charters

New Easy Rider Charters

New Ray Ann Charters

New Salmon Queen Charters

Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers

Northern California Guides Association

Northwest Guides and Anglers Association

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association

Outdoor Pro Shop

Outer Limits Charters

Outwest Marketing

P Line

Pacific Catch Fish Grill

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

Pacific Fishery Management Council

Pasadena Casting Club

Pro-Troll Fishing Products

Queen of Hearts Charters

Que Sera Sera Charters

Rapala USA

Randy's Fishing Trips

Recreational Fishing Alliance

Reel Steel Sportfishing

Riptide Charters

Roy Gray & Associates

SalmonAid Foundation

Salmon King Lodge West

Salmon Water Now

Sandy Ann Charters

San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association

Santa Clarita Casting Club

Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen

Save our Wild Salmon Coalition

Sep's Outdoors Inc.

Sierra Pacific Flyfishers

Sir Randy Charters

Soleman Sportfishing Charters

Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association

Sonoma County Abalone Network

Southwest Council Federation of Fly Fishers

Sportfishing Association of California

Spring Creek Guide Service

Stagnaro's Charters

Star of Monterey Charters

StriperFest

Sunny's Electric Marine

Ted's Sports Center

Telstar Charters

Trek II

Tri-Valley Fly Fishers

Trout Underground

Trout Unlimited

USA Fishing

Vance's Tackle

Wacky Jacky Charters

Water for Fish

West Marine

Tribal Groups

Karuk Tribe

Mocdoc Nation

Winnemen Wintu Tribe

Wishtoyo Foundation

Agricultural Groups

Friant Water Authority \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Opposition limited to San Joaquin River Restoration

provisions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic Sacramento

Recreation Groups

Adventure Connection, Inc

American Whitewater

California Outdoors

Camp Lotus

Mokelumne River Outfitters

The O.A.R.S. Family of Companies

River and Rock Adventures

River Runners, Inc.

Rubicon Whitewater Adventures

Sport Sales

Whitewater Connection

Whitewater Voyages

There is always the rest of the story. And while this amendment deals with one of the pernicious parts of the legislation that would have been a perpetual contract, it does not deal with the remaining pieces of the Central Valley Improvement Act, which dealt with the issue of how those contracts were to be renegotiated at the end of 40 years. In fact, those parts of the Central Valley Improvement Act said that, in the renegotiation process, the Federal Government needed to take into account the issues of water availability. You know, maybe there's not that much water available and we need to downgrade, or maybe we need to increase the amount of water, take into account the environmental issues. So those very, very important qualifications on how the contracts would be renegotiated disappeared in the underlying bill.

You did deal with one of the problems, and that is the perpetuity issue, and we understand that. But, nonetheless, there is a very, very serious problem that remains in the negotiation or the renegotiation of the contracts; and, therefore, the amendment, while dealing with one problem, allows the remaining problems to exist. And those remaining problems are how and under what circumstances is the Federal Government to carry out the negotiations; that is, do we take into account environmental issues, fish in the river or not, and availability of water or not.

Sometimes on this floor you just shake your head and wonder if you may have fallen down the rabbit hole and ``Alice in Wonderland'' is really real, where up is down and down is up, and left is right and right is left, and this confusion abounding.

I just heard the most amazing argument I could possibly have imagined, that somehow this bill will stop the peripheral canal. I think not. Perhaps it will because it will totally destroy any opportunity that there may be for California to come together around a comprehensive solution to its water situation.

It just makes me wonder what in the world is going on here, particularly my colleague from California who wants to represent this county of Tuolumne who may want to read his own bill where he wipes out all of the contracting provisions in the Central Valley Improvement Act in which the Tuolumne County Regional Water Agency is given the right to water out of the New Melones Reservoir. That is gone.

By the way, if you happen to care about veterans who might somehow be placed in the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery, their 850 acre-feet of water is also wiped out.

This bill has far-reaching effects. It has far, far-reaching effects in wiping out the Central Valley Improvement Act. It also wipes out the environmental laws, wipes out the water for the Central Valley National Cemetery, it wipes out the water for Tuolumne County. What effect it has on the peripheral canal, I just can't understand other than it will destroy whatever comity and working together there is in California to solve the overarching problems.

By the way, you are stealing 800,000 acre-feet from the delta in this bill. That's water that the delta community needs. That's water that the delta community needs for its citizens, for water quality, and for agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard some of the most amazing things in the last 20 minutes that I'm absolutely sometimes unable to even respond to them.

First of all, let's get a couple of things straight before I go to the amendment.

The water that is delivered by the Central Valley Project either under the CVPIA or under the original law is water that is under contract. It is not a property right. It is water that is granted by reason of a contract between the Federal Government and the individual water districts that take that water. It is not a property right.

Now, certainly the farmers own their property, and that is a property right. But the water is not. And by the way, that water--on every one of those contracts, there is a shortage on most of those contracts, particularly the ones that are not replacing riparian water rights. Those contracts all have shortage provisions, so that when we have a drought--and we certainly have been in that situation in California today, and we were back in 2008 and 2007--there are specific requirements in the contracts to reduce the amount of water.

So all of this poppycock that we've been hearing around here today about 100 percent, it's just not the way it has ever been and never will be unless the contract provisions remain, or if this bill become law, and that's where my amendment comes in. It simply removes from this bill the contract provisions in the bill and goes back to the original law.

Now, the original law, which is the CVPIA, which amended the earlier law, has many, many provisions, and in fact it does provide up to 850 acre-feet of water for the national cemetery in the San Joaquin Valley. That, by the way, is wiped out, and also wiped out by the proposed bill before us is the water for the Tuolumne County regional water agencies. So if I represented those counties, I might be concerned about what was happening here.

Understand that many other provisions of this law are important. We did not know back in 1990 1992 what was going to happen with water. The State was in the process of adjudicating the water rights, the Water Resources Control Board, and so the law took into account their decision.

Now, what's happening here in this bill is the removal of the power of the State to allocate its water, to look at the water resources and to make some sense out of what is happening with water. Apparently, we're not going to care about that anymore, and we're simply going to bring to the Federal Government the power to appropriate water in California. That's precisely what happens here.

Now, there was an improvement. I'll grant the chairman of the subcommittee credit for eliminating the perpetual nature of the contracts that were in the original bill that was brought to the floor. Good as far as it goes. But all of the other requirements that are in the CVPI that are wise requirements about how the water is to be allocated from north to south, from the environment to the farmers, and among the farmers, are all removed. And the power of the State to allocate that water using the Water Resources

Control Board, which has been the traditional method, is also removed. Giving rise to this point that this bill overrides State law. And if you are any other State that has a reclamation project in it, beware. Beware what is happening here in the House of Representatives this day. You, too, could be at risk of some interest group in or out of your State seizing your water.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Well, first of all, if the gentleman would listen carefully, I was always referring not to the 1956 law but rather to the CVPIA, the 1992 law. Indeed, the 1992 law did change for the better, recognizing the unique situation in California where we had both a State and a Federal water project operating and many other appropriators operating on the rivers in California.

Taking that into account, and taking into account the rapidly growing population and need in California and allowing the State to determine what might be done for the need of that water--I would refer the gentleman, if he cares to take a look, at section 3404, limitation on contracts and contracting reforms. This is what you've wiped out in your bill. It specifically provides that the California State Water Resources Control Board, in concluding their review of the California Court of Appeals--in other words, you have wiped out in your bill the ability of the State of California through the Water Resources Control Board to allocate the water, to take into account court decisions. The bill overturns 150 years of California water law and wipes it out.

In fact, the CVPI took very specific account of California law and wrote it into the Federal law.

What's wrong with that? Nothing that I could think about, because California is unique in so many, many ways, and the CVPIA allowed that to happen.

Now, if I might just take a few seconds and clarify a few things.

Yes, indeed, you were talking about the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior. That's me. I did conduct those negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

We are going around and around here. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back from the heat of the debate and realize exactly what's happening here.

In this particular amendment is an effort to try to make sure that the taxpayers of the United States are adequately compensated for the money that they have loaned for the development of the Central Valley Project and for the money that they have loaned for the specific elements within the Central Valley Project. These are the specific authorized sub-portions of the Central Valley Project. For example, with the San Luis Unit, the taxpayers loaned a vast amount of money.

When you look at the details in this bill, you will find that there is a very artful way of avoiding the full cost of repayment through early repayments. The way in which the bill is written, the water districts are able to pay off their loans without having to pay off the interest, and then going forward, they're not having to share in the ongoing cost of maintenance of the major reservoirs and water facilities.

In other words, they are simply charged with the cost of the water, not for the ongoing operational repair and other costs. It's very interesting, very artfully done and, once again, provides an enormous subsidy to those who have had a very good subsidy for many years. It's not right. It ought not occur.

The amendment before us simply says that, if you're going to get a loan, you are going to have to pay interest.

You will hear this from the other side as they close, Oh, but you are going to be able to get some $300 million. Yes, that money will flow more quickly into the treasury to be sure because it allows the water districts, as a result of the way in which this bill is written, to achieve an enormous advantage. They will be able to get water into the future without having to pay the full cost of that water.

So when you look at it from the total accounting procedures, you wind up with an additional subsidy going to these water districts. It's not right, and it's not fair to the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, once again we need to step back and really understand the full impact of this particular piece of legislation that is before us. It has profound impact on California. We heard earlier discussion about the delta, two amendments put forth by my colleague, Mr. McNerney, and as he spoke to the issues of the delta and the sensitivity of it.

The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it includes the San Francisco Bay. It's a very sensitive estuary. It's dependent upon a flow of freshwater at certain times of the year, and this legislation very artfully, in a very complex series of languages and changes in law and word, takes 800,000 acre-feet away from the environment of the delta, that would be the aquatic environment, and delivers it to the water contractors, the south-of-delta water contractors. It's done in a way that it is hard to recognize; but when I asked the chairman of the committee what the purpose was, he stated unequivocably that it was to take the 800,000 acre-feet of water.

The impact of that will be profound. So whatever you may say about the species in the delta, the salmon, the striped bass, the smelt or any other species, this theft of 800,000 acre-feet of water will have a profound and negative effect.

It's water that is there to be used certain times of the year to carry out the necessary protection of species, water that would flow down the river when the salmon want to migrate up the river, water that would be there for the smelt when they are breeding or when they are moving into their breeding habitat.

It is one of the biggest water grabs, at least in the last half century, and it will have profound negative effects. When taken with the other provisions of the bill that wipe out entirely, entirely wipe out the Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the EPA Clean Water Act, all of those are gone in this bill, and now you are taking the water.

California protections for the environment, the California laws that replicate the Federal laws, they too are pushed aside by this bill. Then you wind up taking the water on top of it.

What is left for the delta? What is left for the species in the delta, the fish, the aquatic? What is left for San Francisco Bay? Not much. Not much. That's why this bill is the worst environmental bill in many, many decades. Call it any other way you like, but that's exactly what it is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The chairman of the committee, if I did say the chairman of the committee, I believe I said the chairman of the subcommittee. In which case if I did, Mr. Hastings, you are quite correct; you were not there. The chairman of the subcommittee was to whom I was referring.

With regard to the effect, you can try to spin this any way you like, but the reality is that in the Central Valley Improvement Act, 800,000 acre feet of water was dedicated to the environment, and it was not temporary; it was part of what was to be done into the future. And the negotiations that ensued following the accord in 1994, those negotiations were specifically designed to reach an accommodation on how to meet all of the requirements of the Central Valley Improvement Act, including what to do with the 800,000 acre feet.

I would point out to the opponents of this amendment that the accord, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, was never intended to be permanent. It had in fact a 3-year limitation, which led to my involvement when I became deputy secretary to try to work out a solution. And in fact we did. Unfortunately, the Westlands Water District, one of the proposed signatories to the bill, walked away from the table when everybody else was ready to sign. And we have been involved in this imbroglio ever since.

Now, the 800,000 acre feet is indeed taken away from the environment. No matter how you spin this, it's gone. It is the biggest theft of water perhaps in modern California water history--800,000 acre feet. It may be recycled, but the control of it for the environment is lost. The environmental protections that go along with that water are gone. Both the State and the Federal protections, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, California CEQA, all of those are gone as a result of this bill. This is the most amazing override of environmental law that I have ever seen in the 37 years that I've been involved in water policy throughout this Nation. It is remarkable what is being attempted here, and we've got to stop this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to present this amendment. This amendment will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee, but it is an amendment that is important to every Representative in this House if you care about the 10th Amendment and you care about the ability of your State to set its own policies.

Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House should be paying attention to this bill. We read the Constitution the first day of this Congress. The 10th Amendment guarantees that the States have the ability to take care of their own water systems and many other issues that pertain to the States. This bill, this bill overrides State law in California. This bill sets aside numerous State laws in California. This bill overrides 150 years of California water law set in place by the legislature, the governors, by the courts of California, and the Federal courts. This bill destroys the ability of California to conduct and to manage its own water.

I put this map up of California so that you might contemplate for a few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. California is a big State, 38 million people, diverse, extraordinary water fights. There's a fellow who lived in California years ago, Mark Twain, and he said, ``In California, whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting.'' And it's been true ever since.

This is the Central Valley of California, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It's where the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River join together in an inland estuary, one of the few in the world. And also, San Francisco Bay. This bill will lead to the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, and it does so by overriding California law and the California Constitution.

The California Constitution holds the water of the State of California in trust. In trust. The State of California, the government, is responsible for the care of that water so that it can be appropriately distributed, not only for the beneficial use of consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also, also for the environment.

This bill takes away the laws of the State of California that would provide for the protection of the environment. The California CEQA, Environmental Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, the Endangered Species Act of the State of California, are overridden by this bill. And by the way, the Federal laws also. It takes us back to 1994, to a period of time when we didn't know the science. We didn't understand what the full impact of water diversions and other contaminants and other species would be in the delta.

Since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries. We have seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen, both commercial and recreational, unable to fish. The loss of much. There is a much talk in this House about a manmade drought. That's baloney. It was a real drought. And yes, there were environmental considerations that further reduced water. That water was reduced under contracts that called for shortages in the case of drought.

So what are we talking about here with this bill? We're talking about the usurpation of power by the Federal Government, taking the basic ability of the State of California to regulate its water, to deal with its environmental issues, and causing this House, this Federal Government, to have that power.

Think closely all of you who have a reclamation project in your district, and there are some 18 States, ranging from the Pacific to the Mississippi. You have reclamation projects. Think deeply. Think about what happens when the Federal Government goes to California, the biggest State, and says: We don't care what your laws are; we're going to tell you what to do. Think what that might mean to you in the future when somebody in your State has the power to put before this House a law that runs over the top of your State laws.

If you care about the 10th Amendment, if you care about States' rights, you'd better be voting ``no'' because this is a precedent you don't want to ever see in your State, and we don't want to see it in California. Think deeply, Members of this House, think deeply about what's at stake here. I ask for this motion to pass.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment the gentlelady from California on stating the opposite of this bill with remarkable precision.

It does not repeal 20 years of California water law; it restores it by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a broad bipartisan coalition in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994. In fact, at that time, the Democratic Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, assured all parties that this agreement would be honored by the State and Federal governments.

His promise was broken first by his own Department and most recently when a Federal court deemed the delta smelt to be more important than the livelihoods of thousands of Central Valley farmworkers. Hundreds of billions of gallons of water that these communities had already paid for and depended upon were simply expropriated and blissfully and cavalierly dumped into the Pacific Ocean, turning much of California's fertile Central Valley into a dust bowl.

This bill redeems the promise made to the people of California and restores the allocations that were agreed to.

We hear: Well, that was then and this is now, and the science has changed. What they are referring to is not

science; it is ideology masquerading as science. In 2010, their claims were thrown out of the Federal court, which cited ideological zealots who had attempted to, in the words of the court, ``Mislead and to deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it's not science.''

The science is this: the Northwest Fisheries Science Center determined the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a principal factor in salmon migration. Ocean currents.

The California Department of Water Resources determined that pumps which deliver water to the Central Valley had a negligible influence on salmon and delta smelt migration.

The National Academy of Sciences reported that nonnative and invasive predators, like the striped bass, are a far more significant influence on salmon and delta smelt populations.

So the second thing that this bill does is to replace the ideological zealotry that created this human disaster with practical and fact-based solutions to support native delta smelt and salmon populations. For example, as I said earlier, it's common to find striped bass in the delta gorged with salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these destructive, invasive, and nonnative predators.

Fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon smolts each year, and tens of thousands return as fully grown adults to spawn, but these fish are not allowed to be counted. This bill counts them, ensuring that hatcheries will produce thriving and bountiful populations of salmon and delta smelts and any other species considered endangered.

The San Joaquin River Settlement Act envisions an absurdly impractical year-round cold war salmon fishery on the hot valley floor at an estimated cost of $2 million per individual fish. That act was adopted by the Democrats 2 years ago when they controlled this House. It is so expensive because it attempts to establish something that only existed sporadically in nature. Instead, this bill establishes a year- round warm water fishery that acts in concert with the habitat at a fraction of the cost.

Third, the bill removes disincentives in current law that discourage farmers from purchasing surplus water in wet years to recharge groundwater banks.

It removes prohibitive regulatory restrictions on water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers, which once had efficiently distributed water throughout that system from areas of surplus to areas of shortage.

It allows environmental flows to be recycled and used by human communities once those flows have achieved their environmental purposes.

Fourth, it brings the full force of Federal law to invoke and protect State water rights and forbid their violation by any bureaucracy: local, State, or Federal. In fact, this provision specifically addressed concerns raised by the very same opponents to the original bill who feared that, because of the unique joint operating agreement between the State and Federal Governments, changes in Federal allocations could lead to raids on senior water rights holders by the State government.

This provision fully addresses those concerns through the Federal Government's legitimate constitutional authority in the 14th Amendment to protect the property rights of its citizens against encroachment by any government bureaucracy. This is the preemption issue that the opponents are raising. They are some of the same opponents who attacked the original bill for not protecting those rights. This bill doesn't preempt those rights; it specifically invokes them and protects them.

It brings to an end the predation on the working people of California. It places senior water rights holders in a safe and secure position, and treats our water as the precious resource it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two concerns that have been raised by opponents of the bill during the committee markup and here on the floor today.

A great deal of time during that markup and more today was spent addressing concerns that the bill provides for 40-year contracts that can be renewed each year. The minority charged that this amounts to de facto privatization of a public resource.

Well, we have tried over and over to explain to them that 40-year successive renewal contracts are the rule in Western water law, and the 25-year provision for the Central Valley Project was actually the exception. Indeed, the CVP used to operate with a 40-year provision until that was changed in 1992.

This amendment makes it absolutely crystal clear, I certainly hope, that the contract provisions for the Central Valley Project must be in conformity with the act of July 2, 1956, that amended the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939. These provisions govern all reclamation projects throughout the western United States and treats the CVP contracts no differently. I hope that this provision settles this issue.

The second substantive provision, also included in deference to opponents of the measures, arises from an amendment that intends to expedite four CALFED surface water projects. It was charged that the wording would have interfered with authorization of the project.

This amendment makes it crystal clear that these four projects are authorized as long as non-Federal financing is used. This clears the way for local, State, and private funds to be applied immediately to the construction of these facilities.

The rest of the amendments are technical. They remove superfluous language, correct misspellings, and correct inadvertent omission.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me read directly from the act of July 2, 1956, governing all reclamation contracts, including those under this legislation:

The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-term contracts--

This amendment applies the act that I was just reading to the Central Valley Project. I was specifically answering the gentlelady's question by quoting directly from the text of the act that this proposes.

No. It has to be negotiated. In fact, just read the text. I think this will answer the question.

Mr. Chairman, if I could now answer the question of the gentlewoman that she didn't seem to want to hear, it is this:

This act applies--the act of July 2, 1956--to all contracts in the CVP under this legislation. That legislation states:

The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-

term contract hereafter entered into, if the other

contracting party so requests, for renewal thereof under

stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the

parties.

And I repeat: under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties.

This is not automatic renewal. This is negotiated anew between the government and the contractor. The only exception to that act under this bill is to accommodate the early repayment of Federal loans, which would be a boon to the cash-strapped Federal Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, as we have repeatedly tried to explain to the minority, this measure simply applies the same

standards to the CVP as are applied to all other water contracts throughout the western United States.

It was a punitive act by this Congress in 1992 that reduced the amount of time in these contracts from 40 years to 25 years exclusively for the CVP. This legislation sets that right and returns the CVP to equal treatment with any other water project in the western United States.

I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentlelady has closed.

Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman very specifically, the contract negotiations are conducted in precisely the same manner as every other contract in the Western United States.

I would remind the gentleman and the gentlelady who carried the legislation, this Congress approved a 50-year contract for Hoover power users. And I would remind my friend, the gentleman from California, that during the markup, he specifically said that he could probably live with 40 years. I hope that is still the case. I hope that these amendments assuage his concerns, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the Interior Secretary to suspend this bill if he finds that one job is lost north of the delta. Well, this is the same Interior Secretary who appeared before the Natural Resources Committee in 2009. At the time, thousands of farmworkers were thrown into unemployment by the water diversions. Hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland were turned into a dust bowl.

And in the midst of the crisis, he admitted that as Interior Secretary, he had the authority to stop the diversions and end the agony of the Central Valley, but he chose not to do so because, in his words, ``It would be like admitting defeat.'' And this is the man that the gentleman from California would give the power--upon finding a single lost job in northern California--to plunge our State into another government-created dust bowl? I don't think so.

The Northern California Water Association represents the farms and communities of northern California and they write of this bill:

The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented

Federal statutory express recognition of and commitment to

California's State water rights priority system and area of

origin protections. This is important for the region to

provide sustainable water supply for productive farmlands,

wildlife refuges and managed wetlands, cities and rural

communities, recreation and meandering rivers that support

important fisheries.

So speaks northern California.

Mr. Chairman, fewer Americans are working today than on the day that this administration took office. We will not put in the hands of that administration the power to destroy still more jobs, which this amendment cynically seeks to do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Perhaps my friend from California was not listening when I presented the manager's amendment which addresses this very subject.

As I pointed out to him--apparently he has a short memory--he had objected to the successive renewal provision that he claimed was in the bill but very specifically said he felt he could probably live with 40 years on the amount of time for these contracts. As I've tried to point out to him repeatedly, the measure, and explicitly as amended, does restore the contracting provisions used throughout the Western United States for contracts involving CVP water.

The gentleman says that his amendment puts the contract provisions back to the original law. No, his amendment does not do that. This bill puts the contract provisions back to the original law. That's the reclamation law of 1939 as amended July 2, 1956, the very provisions that are restored in this bill.

What his measure does is to continue to single out the Central Valley Project uniquely among all the reclamation projects across America as the one project that can only get 25-year financing. The problem, of course, with that is that these contracts require a degree of certainty over the long-term costs. That's why the 40-year contracts are in place with every other project of the Bureau of Reclamation in the United States, just as was the fact for the Central Valley Project until it was amended by Congress in 1992.

The gentleman says this overrides State law. The CVPIA overrode State law, and the gentleman was very supportive of that at the time. He obviously has concerns over long-term memory loss as well.

I would simply point out that this measure simply says that the CVP contracts will be treated on the same basis as every other contract in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the author of the legislation, Mr. Nunes of California.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

First, I want to correct one thing. I said that 40 years is common throughout the western United States. I do need to point out again that the Hoover Dam was actually given a 50-year contract.

The amendment fully addresses the concerns that were expressed by the gentleman over the successive renewal provisions in the contracts. I think we've made it very clear that the conditions of the contracts have to be agreed to by both parties. The gentleman, himself, in markup said he could live with 40 years. He has obviously reconsidered. This measure simply sets right a wrong that was done in 1992, and it treats the CVP as every other reclamation project.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote when the gentlelady introduced it in markup, and it deserves a similar fate on the House floor. I mean, let's be clear about what this does. It singles out Central Valley Project participants to pay a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. This surtax would be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

The Central Valley Project was already singled out for one punitive tax, about $50 million annually, by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of environmental slush funds. Now, I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of the water projects, but they should pay only the cost of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they're dry.

When the left speaks of corporate farms, you know, they often leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that's who we would be singling out for what amounts to a special tax. That tax can be paid in one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices.

I have a modest suggestion for the gentlelady. Perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business.

I have often criticized her colleagues for policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but this proposal is quite bold. This proposal does so directly and dramatically. That's why several of her colleagues on the Democratic side abandoned her in committee and why they would be well advised to do so again on the floor.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issues surrounding the bill. What comes first, people or fish?

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes temporarily. In fact, during a Senate debate, the floor manager of the conference report, Senator Malcolm Wallop, pointed out that that 800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield is up-front water designed to deal with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and delta requirements while the various mitigation actions are undertaken. The various mitigation actions were to build more supply so that that 800,000 acres taken from the farmers would then be returned to them.

That 800,000 acre-feet came out of allocations of the Central Valley Project, were agreed to by all sides that were incorporated in the Bay- Delta Accord, which this bill restores. But somewhere along the line, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather than as a ceiling.

Back in the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Interior Department, under Bill Clinton, ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of California.

That preempted State water rights laws, I might add, and I believe the gentleman from California knows him. In fact, I believe the gentleman from California is him.

This bill reestablishes the 800,000 acre foot allotment agreed to by all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised ``a deal is a deal.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and this

is the provision that the gentleman would have us delete.

I might also add that under this bill, the 800,000 acre feet of water can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. That's 800,000 acre feet of additional water for communities like his. Of that, a little more than one-tenth of 1 percent would have gone to the little town of Cattlemen City. That's irrelevant because this provision, too, the gentleman was proposing to strike.

The contract holders that paid for this project gave up 800,000 acre feet of water with the promise it would be a temporary ceiling. One broken promise after another changed this to a permanent floor, claiming more and more water be expropriated from the people who paid for it and dumped into the Pacific Ocean. This measure sets that injustice right.

With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's memory problems seem to have struck again. I do not recall making such a statement either, or intending to make such a statement. What I have said is that that 800,000 acre feet, which now will become a ceiling rather than a floor, can provide the opportunity for recycling under this bill so that that 800,000 acre feet, once it has served its environmental purposes, may then be used by communities throughout the bay area.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, the devastation of the Central Valley of California occurred because of the breaking of a Federal promise--a Federal agreement. The gentleman from California says, oh, it wasn't an agreement at all; it was just a suggestion. Well, that's not what the Interior Secretary said at the time. He said, a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there's a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government. The Senator who carried the conference report on the Senate floor said it was a deal, a temporary measure until additional water was brought online. This bill redeems that promise. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts would have us break that promise forever.

As I stated earlier, we keep hearing, well, that was then and this is now. Science has changed and so should our policy. If that's the case, then the Federal Government's promises are worthless, and they mean nothing. That was a promise agreed to by all parties. It was broken by the Federal Government.

What they're referring to is not science. It is ideology masquerading as science, so has said the Federal court. Now we have news from the Klamath that one of the scientists involved in the reports is now charging that the Department subverted science for political ends.

It is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands of families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based solutions that keep our promises. It's time that we placed a higher value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the environmental left. That's what this bill does, and that's what the gentleman's amendment would prevent.

Finally, the gentleman would insert a requirement that the act require the

best available science to move forward. Well, the gentleman knows that what is termed ``best available science'' was literally thrown out of court with the court saying not only was it not the best available science; it wasn't science at all. The only practical effect of the provision is to provide employment for the only growth sector left in California's economy--environmental lawsuits intended not to win, because ultimately they do lose, but rather to delay projects indefinitely and make them cost prohibitive to pursue. But I compliment the gentleman on his creativity.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, it is odd, very odd to hear the argument again in this Hall that a State's right to deny basic freedoms to its citizens trumps the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The last time we heard this argument in this Hall, it involved citizens' civil rights. Now it is the citizens' water rights. But make no mistake: it is the same old saw.

The reason we have a 14th Amendment to our Constitution is because its Framers recognized that States could become abusive of the rights of their citizens, including their property rights, including their water rights, and the Federal Government had a responsibility and a duty to protect them. A responsibility and a duty specifically vested in this Congress, a responsibility and a duty that we exercise in the bill that the gentleman from California would have us gut.

Well, what does the Constitution actually say on the subject? It says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

And it grants Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

Let us turn to the provisions of the bill that the gentleman objects to. It is Title IV. It directs the Interior Secretary, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, a Federal project, I might add, to strictly adhere to State water rights laws and priorities. It doesn't trample State water rights; it invokes and enforces them.

Title IV goes on further to direct the Secretary to strictly adhere to and honor water rights and priorities that were obtained or existed pursuant to various sections of California water code.

I repeat, it doesn't trample States' rights. It invokes them and enforces them. This sets no precedent for other States. California is the only State in the country with a coordinated operations agreement that combines a Federal project, the Central Valley Project, with a State project, the State Water Project, and does so, by the way, at California's request and with California's consent.

In fact, Congress has a long history of citing that Coordinated Operations Agreement to invoke preemptive authority over this coordinated Federal and State project. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act in 1992 is replete with such preemptions.

Mr. Speaker, fewer Americans are working today than were working the day that this administration was sworn into office. This administration's actions caused thousands and thousands of hardworking farm working families to lose their jobs. This measure solves that travesty. The same administration that is blocking the thousands of jobs that the Keystone pipeline would produce has also vowed to veto this measure. I think the American people are going to have a great deal to say about that in coming days.

Ironically, the provision that the gentleman would have us remove was specifically placed in the bill because he and his colleagues objected that its original provision might cause the State government to actively undermine the rights of its senior water rights holders. Now that was a legitimate concern. Senior water rights holders in northern California were scared to death that they might have the State undercut their water rights, and this bill specifically addresses that concern. To address that concern, this provision was placed in the bill, and now the gentleman objects to it.

The gentleman first attacked the bill because the bill lacked this protection, and now he attacks the bill because it has that protection. The gentleman knows what I'm talking about. The gentleman knows that I have great affection for him, but I must say he is becoming exceedingly hard to please.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this jobs killer act that ignores more than 20 years of established science.

Tens of thousands of people depend on the Bay-Delta for their livelihoods, including many farmers, fishermen, and sportsmen who contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year.

Sadly, the sponsors of this bill are using the legislation to create winners and losers by preempting California State law. This bill would take water from folks in northern California for use in California's Central Valley. This means even less water to sports fishermen and to commercial fishermen, the basis of two thriving industries in our State.

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations strongly opposes the bill. They estimate that over 25,000 jobs were lost in the salmon fishing industry due to the 2008 and 2009 closures.

The American Sportsfishing Association shows that California's economy suffers $1.4 billion in loss each year that the salmon fishery season is

closed. If this bill becomes law, these jobs would be lost forever, and the economic losses would be permanent.

Appropriate amounts of water are also critical to support the economies for wildlife-associated recreation. In California, 7.4 million sportsmen contribute over $8 billion to the economy every year. Without water, many of these hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities will be lost.

More than 200 sportsmen's organizations have written to express their opposition to this bill. These men and women recognize the extreme consequences of this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to insert this letter that I have signed by those over 200 organizations into the Record.

February 26, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The

California Environmental Water Caucus, and the numerous

environmental, environmental justice, recreational and

commercial fishing groups, legal and advocacy groups, and

Indian tribes, whose logos and names are attached to this

letter, would collectively like to express our strong

opposition to the ill-conceived and regressive legislation

contained in H.R. 1837, the misleadingly entitled

``Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.'' We

do not believe that this bill merits a vote by the U.S. House

of Representatives.

In summary, this radical legislation preempts state water

law, eliminates environmental protections for salmon and

other commercially valuable species, guts the 1992 Central

Valley Project Improvement Act, and overturns the broadly

supported, court approved settlement to restore the San

Joaquin River. As a result, this bill threatens thousands of

salmon fishing jobs and communities in California and Oregon,

water quality in the Bay-Delta, and the reliability of

California's water supplies.

H.R. 1837 would overturn the fundamental Congressional

principle which requires the federal government to follow

state water law whenever possible. This principle has been a

bulwark of rights reserved to the individual states and

should not be violated by this kind of legislation. Even more

specifically, this radical legislation would preempt the

public trust doctrine as defined in the California

Constitution and eliminate the implementation of a bipartisan

package of water policy reform legislation adopted by the

State of California in 2009.

H.R. 1837 would defeat efforts to restore fish populations

in the Delta. Science-based protections for salmon and other

endangered species are required under both California state

law and the Endangered Species Act. In order to support

recovery of endangered fish species, the State of California

has consistently opposed legislation that would weaken the

Endangered Species Act in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and

Estuary. H.R. 1837 would strip those protections.

H.R. 1837 would gut the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act of 1992, which corrected numerous deficiencies built into

the federal Central Valley Project. The Act requires

compliance with state law, encourages water conservation,

makes modest reforms to reduce water subsidies, and

contributes water for the recovery of endangered fish

species.

H.R. 1837 would overturn the 2009 court approved San

Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act which ended twenty

years of litigation on the San Joaquin River. The Settlement

and the Act were supported by all parties to the litigation

and numerous water districts in the San Joaquin Valley and

across the State, along with Members of Congress from both

sides of the aisle. H.R. 1837 attempts to preempt state law

that requires river restoration, and eliminates flood

protection and water supply projects for farmers that were

approved as part of the Settlement and Act.

H.R. 1837 would reduce water quality and water reliability

for Delta communities and Delta farmers. It seeks to ensure

water flows to agribusiness in the western and southern San

Joaquin Valley at the expense of smaller Delta family

farmers. The recently released Economic Sustainability Report

authored by the Delta Protection Commission shows that Delta

agriculture is worth $4.2 billion annually and provides tens

of thousands of jobs. Delta agriculture and jobs should not

be sacrificed to benefit water users in other parts of the

state, some of whom do not even use that water for

agriculture. This legislation would further aggravate the

water supply divide within the state and would help

perpetuate the destructive ``water wars'' which characterize

water rules in California.

In summary, H.R. 1837 is an unprecedented assault on a

state's ability to enact and support its own water laws, and

it is an undisguised water grab in favor of one district to

the detriment of other parts of the state, all engineered by

the federal government.

For all of the above reasons, we oppose H.R. 1837 and

request that you withdraw the legislation.

David Nesmith,

Co-Facilitator.

Nick Di Croce,

Co-Facilitator.

The following 190 organizations are signatories to this

comment letter:

Bill Jennings, Executive Director, California Sportfishing

Protection Alliance; Dave Britts, President, Pacific Coast

Federation of Fisherman's Associations; Carolee Krieger,

Executive Director, California Water Impact Network; Jonas

Minton, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Planning and

Conservation League; Ron Stork, Senior Policy Advocate

Friends of the River; Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst

Clean Water Action.

David Lewis, Executive Director Save the Bay; Joan

Clayburg, Executive Director, Sierra Nevada Alliance; Deb

Self, Executive Director, San Francisco Baykeeper; Jim

Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California; Chris

Wright, Executive Director Foothills Conservancy; John Merz,

President, Sacramento River Preservation Trust.

Conner Everts, Executive Director, Southern California

Watershed Alliance; Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla Executive

Director, Restore the Delta; Caleb Dardick, Executive

Director, South Yuba River Citizens League; Barbara Vlamis,

Executive Director AquAlliance; Caleen Sisk-Franco, Spirtual

Leader & Traditional Chief Winnemen Wintu Tribe; Victor

Gonella, President, Golden Gate Salmon Association.

Geoffey McQuilkin Executive Director Mono Lake Committee;

Huey D. Johnson, President, Resource Renewal Institute; Adam

Scow, California Campaign Director Food and Water Watch;

Linda Sheehan, Executive Director Earth Law Center; Leda

Huta, Executive Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Capt.

Roger Thomas, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association.

Mondy Lariz, Director, Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition;

Larry Collins, President, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners

Association; Leaf G. Hillman, Director, Karuk Department of

Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe; Lloyd Carter, President,

California Save Our Streams Council; Eric Wesselman,

Executive Director Tuolumne River Trust; Don Rivenes,

Conservation Chair, Sierra Foothills Audubon.

Esmeralda Soria, Legislative Advocate, California Rural

Legal Assistance Foundation; Mark Rockwell, Co-Conservation

Director, Northern California Council Federation of Fly

Fishers; Dan Bacher Editor, Fish Sniffer; Alan Levine,

Director, Coast Action Group; Zeke Grader, Executive

Director, Institute for Fisheries Resources; Siobahn Dolan,

Director, Desal Response Group.

Andrew J. Orahoske, Conservation Director, Environmental

Protection Information Center; Scott Greacen, Executive

Director, Friends of the Eel River; Mati Waiya Executive

Director Wishtoyo Foundation, Karen Schamback, California

Field Director, California Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility; Rich Cimino, President, Alameda Creek

Alliance; Milo Vukovich, President, Sonoma County Abalone

Network.

Jeff Miller, Conservation Advocate, Center for Biological

Diversity; Bill Wells, Executive Director, California Delta

Chambers & Visitors Bureau; Dave Steindorf, California

Stewardship Director American Whitewater; Bill Ferrero,

Owner, President, Mokelumne River Outfitters; Lorna Elness,

President, San Joaquin Audubon; Carol Perkins, Water

Resources Advocate Butte Environmental Council.

Michael Warburton, Executive Director, The Public Trust

Alliance; Sylvia Kothe, Chairperson, Concerned Citizens

Coalition of Stockton; Frank Egger, President, North Coast

Rivers Alliance; Luke Breit, Legislative Advocate Forests

Forever; Marily Woodhouse, Director, Battle Creek Alliance;

Jeremy Terhune, Coordinator, Friends of the Calaveras.

Don McEnhill, Riverkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper; Tim Little,

Co-Director, Rose Foundation; Steve Shimek, Chief Executive

The Otter Project, Greywolf, Jeff Kelly Chief, Modoc Nation;

Alan Harthorn, Executive Director Friends of Butte Creek;

Larry Hanson, Manager, Northern California River Watch.

Steve Shimek, Program Manager Monterey Coastkeeper; Steve

Pedery, Conservation Director, Oregon Wild; Melanie

Winter, Founder & Director, The River Project; Larry

Glass, President, Safe Alternatives for our Forest

Environment; Lynne Plambeck, Executive Director, Santa

Clarita for Planning and the Environment; Marie Logan &

Jessie Raeder, Co-Presidents, SalmonAid Foundation.

Karen Schambach, President, Center for Sierra Nevada

Conservation; Rain Ananacel, Executive Director, Northcoast

Environmental Center; Michael Schweit, President, Southwest

Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Chris Poehlmann,

President, Friends of the Gualala River; Brenda S. Adelman,

Chairperson, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee;

Nate Rangel, President, California Outdoors.

Chet Ogan, Conservation Chair, Redwood Regional Audubon

Society; Susan Robinson, Board Member, Ebbetts Pass Forest

Watch; Bob Dean, President, Upper Mokelumne River Watershed

Council; Trevor Kennedy, Executive Director, Fishery

Foundation; Dan Silver, Executive Director, Endangered

Habitats League; Jane Humes, Chair, Waldo Holt Conservancy.

Michael Garabedian, Friends of the North Fork American

River; Mike Hudson, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman's

Association; Allison Boucher, Project Manager, Tuolumne

Conservancy; Michael Martin,

Ph.D., Director, Merced River Conservation Committee; Beth

Werner, Baykeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper; Kelli Gant, President,

Trinity Lake Revitalization Alliance.

Rick Coates, Executive Director, Forest Unlimited; Sue

Lynn, Secretary, Cascade Action Now; Larry Glass, President,

South Fort Mountain Defense Committee; Seymour Singer,

President, Pasadena Casting Club; Dick Harris, President,

Santa Clarita Casting Club; Ken Javorsky, President, Tri-

Valley Fly Fishers.

Jim Cox, President, West Delta Chapter, California Striped

Bass Association; Jackson Chapman, President, Sacramento

Chapter, California Striped Bass Association; Roger Mammon,

President, Lower Sherman Island Duck Club; Larry Dennis,

Conservation Chair, Mission Peak Fly Anglers; Henry Sandigo,

Conservation Chair, Granite Bay Flycasters; Jim Tolonen,

Conservation Chair, Santa Cruz Fly Fishermen.

Tom Bartos, President, Foothills Angler Coalition; Bill

Carnazzo, President, Spring Creek Guide Service; Grant

Fraser, President, Auburn Flycasters; Mark Allen, General

Manager, Adventure Connections, Inc.; Greg King, Siskiyou

Land Conservancy; Jim Yarnall, President, Humboldt Area

Saltwater Anglers; Joesph Vaile, Campaign Director, KS Wild.

Ron Forbes, Conservation Chair, Delta Fly Fishers; Denise

Boggs, Executive Director, Conservation Congress; Kim

Glazzard, Executive Director, Organic Sacramento; Bill

O'Kelly, President, Sierra Pacific Flyfishers; Cindy Charles,

Conservation Chair, Golden West Women Flyfishers; Ted Shapas,

Conservation Chair, Diablo Valley Fly Fishermen.

Darrell Tichurst, Chairman, Coastside Fishing Club; Steve

Burke, Spokesperson, Protect Our Water; Lillian Light,

President, Palos Verdes Audubon Chapter; John Weisheit,

Conservation Chair, Living Rivers/Colorado Riverkeeper;

Spreck Rosenkrans, Restore Hetch Hetchy; Don Schmoldt,

President, Sacramento Audubon Society; Diane Hichwa,

Conservation Chair, Madrone Audubon.

Stephen Fuller-Rowell, Co-Founder, Oregon Waterwatch; Tom

Chandler, Editor, Trout Underground; Will Harling, Executive

Director, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council; Don Gillespie,

President, Friends of Del Norte; Randa Solick, Co-Chair,

Santa Cruz WILPF; Ken Franke, Executive Director,

Sportfishing Association of California.

Jim Martin, Recreational Fishing Alliance; Sep Hendrickson,

Executive Director, California Inland Fisheries Foundation;

Aaron Newman, President, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing

Association; Mark Micoch, Co-Chairman, Northern California

Guides Association; Dan Blanton, Chairman, StriperFest; Mike

Augney, Co-Owner, USA Fishing.

Jim Martin, Director, Berkeley Conservation Institute; Bob

Mellinger, Vice-President, Water for Fish; Bart Hall,

Producer, Fred Hall Shows; Randy Repass, Chairman &

Founder, West Marine; Bruce Tokars, President, Salmon

Water Now; Galen Onizuka, Owner, President, Johnson Hicks

Marine.

Angelo Pucci, President, P Line; Dick Pool, President, Pro-

Troll Fishing Products; Liz Hamilton, Executive Director,

Northwest Sportfishing Ind. Assn.; Bob Rees, President, North

West Guides and Anglers Assoc.; Peter Grenell, Manager, San

Mateo County Harbor District; Ken Elie, Owner, President,

Outdoor Pro Shop.

Bill Divens, Salmon King Lodge West; Paul Johnson, Owner,

Monterey Fish Market; Bob Kotula, Outwest Marketing; Danny

Layne, Hawkeye Marketing; Roy Gray, Owner, Roy Gray &

Associates; Dan Pamel, President, Leisure Sales; Paul

Johnson, Owner, Monterey Fish Market.

Michael Scaglione, Pacific Catch Fish Grill; Bill Boyce,

Boyce Image, World Fishing Network; Rich Kato, Sport Sales;

Jack Swanson, Sales Manager, Repala USA; Chuck Cappotto,

Bodega Bay Fisherman's Marketing Assoc.; Gary Coe, Kokanee

Power.

Angelo Pucci, President, G. Pucci and Sons Mfg.; Capt Brian

Smith, Riptide Charters; Capt Bob Ingles, Queen of Hearts

Charters; Capt Brian Cutty, Chubasco Charters; Capt Brian

Guiles, Flying Fish Charters; Capt Chris Chan, Ankeny St.

Sportfishing.

Capt Craig Shimokosu, New Salmon Queen Charters; Capt Dale

Walters, Que Sera Sera Charters; Capt Dennis Baxter, New

Captain Pete Charters; Capt Don Franklin, Soleman

Sportfishing Charters; Capt Ed Gallia, New Easy Rider

Charters; Capt Frank Rescino, Lovely Martha Charters; Capt

Harry Necees, Checkmate Charters; Capt Jack Chapman, Lovely

Linda Sportfishing; Capt Jacky Douglas, Wacky Jacky Charters;

Capt Jay Yokomozo, Huck Finn Charters; Jimmy Robertson, Outer

Limits Charters; Capt Joe Gallia, El Dorado III Charters;

Capt John Atkinson, New Ray Ann Charters; Capt John Kluzmier,

Sir Randy Charters; Capt Nick Lemons, Star of Monterey

Charters; Capt Ken Stagnaro, Stagnaro's Charters; Capt Randy

Thornton, Telstar Charters.

Capt Richard Thornton, Trek II; Capt Rick Powers, Bodega

Bay Sportfishing; Capt Peter Bruno, Randy's Fishing Trips;

Bob Sparre, Bob Sparre's Guide Service; Capt Sean Hodges, Hog

Heaven Charters; George Catagnoia, Owner, Sandy Ann Charters;

Capt Steve Talmadge, Flash Sportfishing Charters; Sal

Vallone, Bob Sands Fishing; Capt Tim Klassen, Reel Steel

Sportfishing; Vance Staplin, Vance's Tackle.

Barbara Emley, F/V Autumn Gale; Capt Chris Acacelo, Chris'

Fishing Charters; Jim Cox, Owner, Jim Cox Sport Fishing

Charters; Jonah Li, Hi's Tackle Box; Sunny Lampre, Owner,

Sunny's Electric Marine; Ron La Force, President, United

Outdoorsmen; Danny Layne, Fish'n Dan's Guide Service; Marilyn

Hendrickson, Sep's Outdoors Inc.; Mike Chamberlain, Ted's

Sports Center; Craig Stone, Emeryville Sportfishing.

That's 200. That's more than the 12 or 14 members of the State legislature that wrote you a letter.

In the end, H.R. 1837 is nothing more than an attempt by well-funded water contractors to steal water from other users with no regard for the fishers, sportsmen, the farmers north of the delta, the families and the businesses who depend on their delta for their livelihood. It guts environmental protections and kills local jobs. It should be rejected, and solutions to California's water challenges should be based on strong and sound science; and it should be done with all of the stakeholders at the table, not in the proverbial back room.

So please join me and over 100 outdoor and fishing organizations and the Western States Water Council to protect northern Californians from political agendas that harm our economy, wildlife, and the people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Thompson-Eshoo amendment states that nothing in this bill can go into effect if the Secretary of the Interior determines that any agricultural, fishery, or related jobs will be lost in northern California counties as a result of this bill. I represent a community with varied economic interests: agriculture, fisheries, and tourism. Our amendment would protect these jobs from this politically driven legislation that would divert water to south-of-delta private agricultural interests.

Proponents of this bill claim that the bill protects jobs. The bill does the exact opposite of what it claims to do. It's a job-killer bill. It creates economic winners and losers based on south-of-delta interests. The livelihoods and concerns of individuals outside of this limited area are ignored in order to support well-heeled agricultural interests south of the delta.

In my home district, over 2 million acres of farmland support a greater than $1 billion market value of products. Over 10 percent of these farms depend on irrigation. I do not believe that these farmers are less important than the south-of-delta farmers. Their jobs, their income, their families should not be sacrificed.

However, this is not simply a northern farmer versus southern farmer issue. Fishermen on the north coast of California saw the result of politically driven water resources decisions in '08 and '09, and they paid the price in almost 5,000 jobs and the economic loss of over $534 million.

The Thompson-Eshoo amendment would prevent any provisions of this bill from going into effect that would result in the loss of jobs in northern California. Join me in protecting jobs from this politically driven bill that prioritizes the agricultural economies south of the delta over all others.

And I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on some of the previous speaker's remarks. I'm glad to add forestry in one of the areas if there's any jobs lost that the bill won't go into effect if that would garner my friend's support of this amendment. And as he mentioned, he said it himself: it creates winners and losers. That's not what we're about. We're about creating jobs, not moving jobs from one area to another.

My friend from California mentioned that there was no salmon fishing and it caused these problems. Well, there's no salmon fishing because the last politically motivated water policy killed 80,000 spawning salmon. It shut down the season--it shut it down. It cost people their boats, and it cost people their jobs. Motels, gas stations, bait shops, grocery stores--everybody was hurt tremendously by that matter, and now we're back at it again trying, once again, to politically move water from one portion of the State to another.

It's a job killer and it preempts State law. It's a bad bill, it ought to be killed, and this amendment ought to be added to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Governors of seven States, fishermen, hunters and farmers, a whole list of people, oppose this bill. Our amendment states that the Central Valley Project and State Water Project shall be operated in a manner that meets all obligation under State and Federal law with operational constraints that are based on the best available science. More than 750 plant and animal species depend upon the delta for their survival. Many of these then support important industries, such as the fishermen, hunters, recreational industries, and farmers that promote local and State economies.

We've seen what happens when science is ignored and environmental protections are gutted for the sake of politics. In 2008 and 2009, salmon fisheries were forced to close because of low-water flows in the rivers. This resulted in the loss of over a half a billion dollars and nearly 5,000 jobs--the same number that the proponents of the bill claim that their bill would create.

This bill would prevent the use of the best available science and adaptive management in the bay and delta by permanently limiting agencies from acting on new scientific information developed since 1994. This alone ignores the last 15 years of the best available science.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and a ``no'' vote on this terrible piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from California that facts are a funny thing, and the Deputy Under Secretary approved this bipartisan agreement in 1994.

I remind the gentleman also that I defended his right in the Rules Committee. I defended the right of the Democrats to have all their amendments made in order.

Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Government began to pass State preemption to take their water away, you can see here that up until this time we had full water allotment throughout California. Yes, when there was a drought, there were a few years we didn't have water, but look at the chaos that has erupted since. This is an important point. The Congress, by using State preemptions, has managed to take water away from cities, communities, and families.

The opponents of this bill claim that somehow the salmon population is decreasing. We can see here in this graph at the bottom--I know it may be hard for some folks to see. The water exports are here. The green represents total water that flowed into the delta throughout the last 25 years. The red line indicates salmon populations. Lo and behold, there is no correlation between the water inflow into the delta and salmon population.

But I will agree that the salmon population has declined, and this bill begins to fix that problem. Why? Because the delta smelt and salmon are being eaten by predator fish that are nonnative to the delta. Let me say that again. Striped bass, nonnative to the delta.

This scientific evidence shows, as the bass population has increased, the smelt population has declined. This bill rectifies this. This bill allows fishermen to fish for the nonnative species. What this is about is we're shutting off the water to Californians and to their families because of the delta smelt right here.

They talk a lot about these dangerous pumps that are pumping this water, these engineering projects that allowed this valley to bloom, that have improved the environment over time. Less than 2 percent of the juvenile salmon--it is negligible in the pumps. Instead of looking at ways to stop that negligible impact, we allow the predator fish, the striped bass, to eat 65 to 90 percent of the juvenile salmon that are being eaten by this bass.

Here we have evidence of this. You can see the bass--I know this is a little gruesome for some folks at home. Here you have the smelt inside the bass. Yet this government is allowing this nonnative species to eat the thing that they so love, the delta smelt.

What has been the result, Mr. Chairman? Food lines. In the breadbasket of the world where they used to grow the Nation's carrots, we now import carrots from China to feed the people in the food lines. This is what this is about. These are children in a food line eating carrots imported from China.

Does this Congress have a moral compass to do the right thing with regards to children in food lines eating carrots imported from China?

Mr. Chairman, we don't need any fancy speeches here today. A sixth-grader from an elementary school in my district--I won't read the whole thing--sent this letter:

Not only does this problem affect the farming industry, it

also affects the farmers, families, and their livelihood. I

am sure you've heard this complaint. But before, as with

future generations, it is of great concern to me. Please do

what you can to get the water to the farmers once again, then

we can use the fertile soil that the people of this valley

have been blessed with.

This sixth-grader is correct. This Congress should do the right thing. We need Democrats and Republicans to come together today. As the Speaker of the House stated earlier, this is to right a wrong.

I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman from California has read the bill, because he complains about the subsidies. In fact, this bill gets rid of the subsidies as this bill returns almost $300 million to the Treasury. So we agree. We want to get rid of the subsidies. We want to cut the deficit. That's what this bill does.

I don't quite understand what he was talking about in terms of tearing down barns, but I would say that the gentleman's legislation that was passed with a Senator from New Jersey and a Congressman from California to preempt State law has been very successful at tearing apart farms and families.

Once again, as many of my colleagues will say, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt made a deal with Republican Governor Pete Wilson. A deal is a deal. The only problem was that there were some dishonest brokers at the table who never went to Congress to get this implemented.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) just made a very important point. Silicon Valley gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco gets their water from Hetch Hetchy. What's Hetch Hetchy? Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. It's in Yosemite, and they pipe their water. So if they care about the fish and the fishermen, tear down the dam, send their water out to the delta. But they don't want to do that.

Now I have a lot of my respect for my friend from northern California (Mr. Thompson). We've worked together on many issues. But I have to remind the gentleman that the salmon fishermen were bailed out. They were given $230 million in payments.

I think there needs to be a GAO study on where this money went to because we don't know where this money went. There's never been any report to show where this money went--$230 million. But it was the Federal Government that told the fishermen not to fish. And I would hope that the gentleman would actually support this legislation because what we have here is the fish that are killing the salmon are the bass--the bass fish do that. So let's let the fishermen go fish. And here's the gruesome picture again. I know you don't like to see it. Let's go get the bass that are eating the smelt so that then the salmon don't have anything to eat. The bass is a nonnative species. So this bill allows fishermen to go back to work.

I would hope that the gentleman would support this bill because we need to get the fishermen back to work. I agree. We don't want to spend $230 million after the Federal Government tells the fishermen, no, you can't fish, and then pays them not to fish. That is insanity.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I don't believe the other side has read the bill. This bill provides for the ultimate protections for delta communities--ultimate protections that guarantee their God-given right to their property and to their water. That's what this bill does. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to continue the attack on farmers all over the State and communities all over the State. So, if delta farmers want to continue to take water out of the delta like they've been doing for 100 years--they have always had their allocation--this bill guarantees that.

Now, I've been to the delta numerous times, and I've spoken to the communities there. Their number one concern is that they do not want the peripheral canal to be built. Well, if you vote against this bill, you are voting to ensure that Jerry Brown, the Governor of California who opposes this bill, gets his wish to build the peripheral canal that the delta farmers don't want. So if the gentleman wants the peripheral canal built, vote against the bill. If the gentleman wants to make sure that his farmers are not guaranteed their right for water, vote against the bill.

But I find it ironic that the minority is arguing for the delta farmers and the delta communities, but at the very basic level the people who are behind this, the Governor of California, was just here the other day advocating to build the peripheral canal that the gentleman says his constituents don't want. Well, my constituents don't want it either. Neither do the people in the north. None of us wants to build a multibillion dollar project like this. And we don't have to because passage of this bill allows valuable water to be moved across the delta in a more equitable fashion to guarantee waterfowl and fish populations would increase, and guarantees rights to farmers and farmworkers and communities.

That's what this bill does. I would hope that folks in this body and the gentleman himself would maybe withdraw his amendment so that we don't have to take a vote on this because I would hate for the gentleman to vote on an amendment that would basically ensure that he would be supporting Jerry Brown and the Democratic administration that want to take his water away from him that he so cherishes.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we need to slow down. I would hope that the other side would take a look at this bill and read the bill. Once they do, they will figure out that all the stakeholders were together in 1994 when everyone sat down to make this agreement. That's what this goes back to.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is really incredible.

There is nothing about veteran cemeteries in this bill. I can understand why the minority would want to talk about veterans, because we love our veterans in this country and we do everything to support them. But it is a stretch to say that a bill dealing with property rights somehow involves veteran cemeteries. Since we're talking about veterans, I will say when we send our veterans overseas, our men and women in the

military to protect this country, we have a right to protect people's private property. That's what this bill does.

I know my other friends on the other side of the aisle who have continued to make this argument, they suddenly care about State preemption. They didn't care about State preemption in 1986, 1992, when they sat down in 1994, when they did their boondoggle in 2009. They didn't care about State preemption then. Boy, today, when we talk about guaranteeing people their right to their private property, they suddenly are the defenders of the Constitution. This is really stretching it.

I know that the gentleman who was the under secretary at the time who made the deal in 1994, that was bragged about by not only the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, bragged about the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994, not only the Under Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior himself and President Bill Clinton. They all supported the '94 agreement. All this talk about comprehensive reform and getting people to the table, we've done that before. What that results in is the illegal taking of people's personal property.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that delta communities are protected in this bill.

They're concerned about water quality. This bill allows water to move through the delta.

They're concerned about maintaining their ability to divert water. This bill allows them to do that. It ensures their private property rights and their rights to their water.

The delta farmers want to make sure that they get conveyance through the delta so they can get their water. This bill does that.

And, as Mr. Denham pointed out, the communities on the west side of San Joaquin County, I guess, perhaps they don't matter to the minority because, evidently, by supporting this and opposing this bill, you're basically guaranteeing that the City of Tracy and those districts, those water districts where those jobs are created, are going to be cut off of their water this year. This bill fixes that.

And, once again, I will say that if the delta communities are worried about this peripheral canal, this is why the delta communities should be supporting this bill. But we don't hear anything about that. We hear about Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, opposing the bill and the attorney general of California opposing the bill.

Why are they opposing the bill? Well, because they were just back in Washington 2 days ago lobbying for the construction of the peripheral canal.

Now, perhaps the delta communities want the peripheral canal. Maybe that's a change. I don't know. I haven't been up there in the last few months. But last I heard, the delta communities do not want the peripheral canal to be built.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to drop his amendment and to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to talk about the water exports.

You saw this earlier. Here are the water exports, Mr. Chairman, right here at the bottom. The green line represents the inflows to the delta. You can see that most of the water, in fact, 76 percent of the water that enters the delta ends up out in the ocean. Seventy-six percent of the water ends up out in the ocean.

What this bill does, this allows the folks in the delta their rights to their water. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting to take those people's water away and their right to their water away.

So if the gentleman's concerned about water quality, then he should support the bill, because this bill allows the water to move more freely throughout the delta because it gets rid of the problems that we have throughout the delta and the rigidness that was created when this Congress, in 1992, basically attempted to put farmers out of business and farmworkers in food lines. That's what this debate's about.

And I would suggest, if the gentleman--we could have a unanimous consent agreement right now for an amendment, if the chairman of the committee would allow me.

The City of San Francisco and Santa Clara and all over the bay area, many of the folks from the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, why do they oppose it other than they want to construct the peripheral canal? They want to ensure construction of the peripheral canal like their Governor, Jerry Brown, wants to do.

But also they don't like the dirty little secret--Yosemite. This was dammed up. Hetch Hetchy was dammed up. Here's the water that sits in Hetch Hetchy today. It was one of John Muir's favorite places on Earth, and this Congress dammed it up.

But you don't see--in all this water that's here, this water would go out to the delta. So perhaps we could have a unanimous consent agreement to tear this down today. Let's dump all this water that goes to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, let's take all this water that would go to the delta, let's dump it down there. Let's save the fish.

Let's go. Unanimous consent agreement. Will anybody agree to it?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman admitting that he was the Under Secretary at the time, and he failed to implement the agreement that everyone came together and agreed upon.

Now, earlier, we had the gentleman from California, who was the author of the 1992 act, who came down to the floor, berated farmers, berated production agriculture, and admitted that it was his goal to get rid of production agriculture.

So why did they, at the time, change from 40-year contracts to 25- year contracts? Folks, I think this is something that the American people will understand. The American people right now from other States may not understand a whole lot about what we're talking about, but they will understand this, and farmers across America will understand this: that when farmers borrow money on their land, many times they have to do it under 30-year agreements with the bank.

So I have to ask myself, why in 1992 did they move this from 20 to 25 years?

Why did they move in 1992 to 25 years? Conveniently that made it very hard for farmers to get loans on their land, especially when they were not sure if they were going to have a water supply. That's what this bill tries to fix. That's why we should vote ``no'' on this amendment because I believe our Founding Fathers and previous Members of Congress who came before us knew at the time that a 40-year agreement would be enough for farmers and people trying to borrow money to go and borrow that money so they could put their families to work and provide for their families.

So that's why we should vote ``no'' against this agreement, when we had the author down here berating production agriculture.

We know what the intent was of 1992, and we've seen the chaos that has been created since 1992, and that's what we fix in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to bring up this issue that the minority continues to ignore. They don't want to talk about this, and I don't understand why. They care about this freshwater. They also care about the environment, but they dammed up Yosemite. They have the water here, and they pipe it to their communities. They completely go around the delta so that none of this water ever makes it to the precious fish that they care about.

We have this beautiful environment here, Mr. Chairman, that was destroyed by the Congress; but we don't see any amendments to fix this travesty, do we? It's interesting that the gentlelady from California wants to raise water rates. Do you know who pays the cheapest water rates in California or electricity rates and fees on that? Hetch Hetchy, the power generation at Hetch Hetchy.

So perhaps we should have an amendment that would be offered that would make Hetch Hetchy pay today's fees, fees that all of the other folks in California are having to pay. If we want to do that, then everyone would be on a level playing field. But no. Instead, this is an attack, once again, as usual, on farm workers and farmers.

I want to remind my colleagues that this bill saves $300 million, $300 million, this bill saves. So if the ratepayers in San Francisco, in Santa Clara, in Silicon Valley, and all over the Bay Area want to have their precious water, well, they ought to pay the same fees, too.

I would suggest, and I would hope, that we come back at some other time and deal with the issue and with the unfairness of people who don't have any water in San Francisco who are so hell-bent on taking people's water away.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick.

The gentlelady from California is the biggest offender of the ultimate subsidy of all. Those are those mystery little Title XVI grants from the Bureau of Reclamation. They don't even charge interest. They just give those away. That's an outrageous subsidy that goes to communities in southern California and in the bay area of $1,500 an acre-foot.

So, I guess we could offer an amendment to strip out all Title XVI money. I'd be willing to do that, too. Let's strip out all the Title XVI money, all the subsidies that go to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and San Francisco. Let's strip out the Title XVI money.

Is the gentlelady willing to strip out Title XVI money?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to remind my colleagues of Dr. Peter Gleick--we haven't heard from him today--Dr. Peter Gleick, the man who comes to testify in Congress before the committee to tell us why it's so important that we take water away from farmers and families. Why have we not heard about Dr. Peter Gleick today? Because 2 weeks ago, Dr. Peter Gleick admitted to impersonating someone else on the Internet, stole information and then falsified the information and sent it out all over the planet. But Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. Dr. Peter Gleick got caught. The main man that they support got caught.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 1387.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1837, the Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.

Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support my agricultural industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water supply. I've witnessed how government regulations and environmental lawsuits can create conflicts for people, and jobs are the losers. However, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen anything like the economic devastation that California's San Joaquin Valley has experienced as a direct result of Federal policies that restrict water supply and that created this man- made drought.

Mr. Chairman, in 2009, Federal regulations to protect an endangered species 3-inch fish led to the deliberate diversion of over 300 billion, Mr. Chairman, 300 billion gallons of water away

from the San Joaquin Valley farmers. This caused hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile farmland to dry up. It put thousands of people out of work, and it caused unemployment to reach 40 percent in some communities.

Last April, the Natural Resources Committee traveled to Fresno, California, for a field hearing where we heard directly from farmworkers and valley growers who have been devastated and seen their livelihoods pushed to the brink by this man-made drought. We heard stories of farmworkers who normally feed the Nation, being forced to stand in food bank lines to receive handouts of carrots--carrots from China.

Mother Nature temporarily rescued this region with historic precipitation last year, but another man-made drought is just around the corner if we do nothing. Rain and snow levels have declined, and just last week the Federal Government announced that the San Joaquin Valley farmers would receive only 30 percent of their initial water allocation for this year. This is unacceptable, and if Congress doesn't act now we will once again see farmworkers having to abandon the fields and return to the food lines.

Families and communities in California have waited far too long for Congress to act. In 2009, Mr. Chairman, and in 2010, Mr. Chairman, while this man-made drought was devastating California, the Obama administration and a Democrat-led Congress did nothing. Republicans are ready to act today on bipartisan legislation that will end this man- made drought and protect up to 30,000 jobs.

This comprehensive solution would restore water deliveries that have been cut off due to Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits. It will ensure a reliable water supply for people and for fish and it will secure water rights just generally, and it will save taxpayer money by ending unnecessary and dubious government projects.

I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that this man-made drought does not just impact California but has rippling effects across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is a salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our country. The inability of these farmers to do their jobs would lead negatively to increased reliance on foreign food sources. Why, Mr. Chairman, would we want to do that?

Also, according to an initial analysis by the nonpartisan CBO, this bill will repeal and reduce nearly $300 million in Federal spending over the next 10 years while also generating nearly $250 million in revenue. To repeat, this bill cuts spending by $300 million and it increases revenue by a quarter of a billion dollars.

This bill is a chance to right the regulatory wrongs of the past, to end future man-made droughts, and to protect jobs and economic livelihood of farmworkers, farmers, and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the subcommittee that developed this legislation on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the sponsor of this legislation, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out that the statistics I used as it relates to unemployment come from Fresno County. That is a county where all of this was impacted. The statistics that were cited by my friends across the aisle were from outside that area.

The second point I want to make is that I have letters here from 14 senators and 18 members of the California legislature. I insert their letters in support in the Record.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act--Organizations in

Support

Water Agencies/Organizations

California Water Alliance

Families Protecting the Valley

Northern California Water Association *

Family Water Alliance

California Watershed Posse

Westlands Water District

San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority: Banta-Carbona

Irrigation District, Broadview Water District, Byron Bethany

Irrigation District (CVPSA), Central California Irrigation

District, Columbia Canal Company, Del Puerto Water District,

Eagle Field Water District, Firebaugh Canal Water District,

Fresno Slough Water District, Henry Miller Reclamation

District #2131, James Irrigation District, Laguna Water

District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro Loma Water

District, Pacheco Water District, Pajaro Valley Water

Management Agency, Panoche Water District, Patterson

Irrigation District, Pleasant Valley Water District,

Reclamation District 1606, San Benito County Water District,

San Luis Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District,

Tranquillity Irrigation District, Turner Island Water

District, West Side Irrigation District, West Stanislaus

Irrigation District

Placer County Water Agency *

Nevada Irrigation District *

El Dorado Irrigation District *

Exchange Contractors **

Modesto Irrigation District **

San Joaquin Tributaries Association

**

Kern County Water Agency: Belridge Water Storage District,

Berrenda Mesa Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage

District, Cawelo Water District, Henry Miller Water District,

Kern Delta Water District, Lost Hills Water District,

Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Semitropic Water

Storage District, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District,

Tejon-Castac Water District, West Kern Water District,

Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

Tehama Colusa Canal Authority: Proberta Water District,

Kirkwood Water District, Thomes Creek Water District, Corning

WD, Orland-Artois Water District, Glide Water District,

Kanawha Water District, Holthouse Water District, Cortina

Water District, Davis Water District, LaGrande Water

District, 4M Water District, Dunnigan Water District, Colusa

County Water District, Westside Water District

Bella Vista Water District

Reclamation District No. 108 *

Maxwell Irrigation District *

Sutter Mutual Water Company *

Provident Irrigation District *

Natomas Mutual Water Company *

River Garden Farms *

Glenn Colusa Irrigation District *

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District *

Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District *

Chowchilla Irrigation District*

National Organizations

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

National Federation of Independent Business

Americans for Limited Government

National Taxpayers Union

Americans for Tax Reform

Citizens Against Government Waste

American Land Rights Association

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Western Business Roundtable

National Farm Organizations

Western Growers

Family Farm Alliance

Agricultural Retailers Association

National Turkey Federation

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

National Agricultural Aviation Association

National Cotton Council

American Pima Cotton Producers

National Chicken Council

Milk Producers Council

National Onion Association

Supima

Western Plant Health Association

Dairy Farmers of America

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Irrigation Association

California Farm Organizations

California Wool Growers Association

California Cattlemen's Association

California Grain Feed Association

California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assoc.

California Citrus Mutual

California Olive Growers Council

California Grape and Tree Fruit League

California Dairies Inc.

California Poultry Federation: Foster Farms; Aviagen

Turkeys, Inc.; Zacky Farms; Squab Producers of California;

Willie Bird Turkeys

Apricot Producers of California

Allied Grape Growers

Almond Hullers & Processors Association

Local Farm Organizations

Fresno County Farm Bureau

Kern County Farm Bureau

Tulare County Farm Bureau

Kings County Farm Bureau

Madera County Farm Bureau

Merced County Farm Bureau

Fresno-Kings Cattlemen

California Businesses

Paramount Farms

Harris Ranch

Harris Woolf Almonds

Borba Farms

Land 0' Lakes

Sagoupse Enterprises LLC

Sagouspe Family Orchards I, II, III, IV

Lyons Magnus

Wawona Packing

Lyons Transportation

Triple J Partners

Ghost Ranch LLC

Old West Management LLC

Panoche Creek Packing, Inc.

Double D Farms

Penny Newman Grain Company

Chaney Ranch

Wind Fall Farms

Panoche Creek Farms

J.G. Avila Farms

Rock'n JK Farms

Sano Farms

Quad Knopf--Civil Engineering

Alvarado Building Group

Kingsburg Federal Land Bank

AGRI Crop Insurance Agency

Redding Electric Utility

Proteus Inc.

Aquarius Aquarium Institute

Ferguson Farming Company

Lost Wagon Wheel Ranch

Brooks Ransom Associates

Bettencourt Farms

Kings Ranch

Waymire Farms

Nelson Ranch

Triple J Trust

Westside Ranch

Freitas Farms 1

JHP Ranch Inc

Joseph G Freitas Farms

Brooks Farms

GCM Farms

Farmer's Fury Winery

Stone Land Company

Errotabere Ranches

Houlding Farms

Tea Party Supporters

Mark Meckler, Co-Founder Tea Party Patriots

Central Valley Tea Party

North Valley Patriots

Other Supporters

Stewards of the Sequoia

Kelly Lilies, Area Administrator, Catholic Charities

Tribal Governments

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

I yield to the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Herger), an individual who unfortunately is leaving Congress after this, but who has been a leader on property rights in that part of his State of California.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), a new Member who represents part of this area that has been devastated and who was an integral player on developing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), another Member from the West, and the chairman of the Western Caucus who knows this issue very well.

Mr. Chairman, here are a number of organizations that have written in support of this legislation on both sides of these pages; and at the appropriate time I, too, will insert them in the Record to show that there is broad, broad support for this legislation.

I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, another gentleman from California who has seen the effects of what this man-made drought is, Mr. McCarthy.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to point out that this bill came out of committee with bipartisan support, and we've had bipartisan debate for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I just want to say to my friend that, as I am the last speaker on my side, I am prepared to close when she is done with her speakers.

Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume that all their time has expired?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been much discussion on the floor about preemption. In fact, the previous speaker emphasized that in his close.

I am from a western State; I'm from Washington. If anybody should be cautious about preemption, it is certainly me. And I say that because I represent an area that has two over-half-a-million-acre, or half-a- million-acre, irrigation districts. So I understand about preemption and Western water law.

But in the context of today's debate, the California water system is unique. Here we have a massive Federal system, the Central Valley Project and a massive State water project called the State Water Project, and it operates as one combined unit.

This is what is very important, Mr. Chairman. The coordinated approach was requested by the State and codified by the Federal Government in 1986. That's when water law was preempted. They asked for it in 1986.

In 1992, it was further preempted by amendments to the law in the Central Valley Project in 1992. So what we did in committee is we offered an amendment that was adopted. Let me read the amendments by Mr. Tipton and Mr. Gosar, and it says:

Congress finds and declares that (1) coordinated operations

between the Central Valley Project and the State Water

Project, previously requested and consented to by the State

of California and the Federal Government, require assertion

of Federal supremacy to protect existing water rights

throughout the system.

That's in California. It says:

(2) these circumstances are unique to California.

Therefore, nothing in this act shall serve as precedent in

any other State.

When we offered that amendment, everybody on our side of the aisle voted for it. Only four on their side of the aisle, when they had an opportunity to make sure preemption wouldn't happen, they voted ``no.'' You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman.

So with that I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time to a member of the committee and somebody who has worked on this legislation, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we only have one other speaker, and we have the right to close, so I'll reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of the time again to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I heard the author of the amendment state something, and I will paraphrase, that he spoke to the chairman of the committee on the allocation of the water, and supposedly the chairman of the committee responded back ``take the water away.''

Number one, I do not recall ever having that dialogue with the maker of the amendment. But had he asked me, my answer would have been an equitable distribution of the water. So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman, because that's what I heard in the debate just previously.