Water Rights Protection Act

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The legislation we have to consider today is flawed on many levels-- it is flawed on process; it is flawed on policy; and it is flawed in claiming that it protects States' water rights. H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem--it creates more problems--because it is so broadly written and has no chance of being enacted into law.

The majority introduced the Water Rights Protection Act as a way to protect private property rights. It is not about protecting private property rights. It is not about protecting States' water rights. It goes in the opposite direction, that of creating a new Federal definition of a ``water right'' when we have not had a hearing on that particular point.

Water rights have, for more than four centuries in American law, been defined as a matter of State law. If the majority is really concerned about Federal overreach, creating a sweeping new Federal definition of a ``water right'' without even a single hearing is not the best choice. H.R. 3189 only had a hearing, and it was held during the government shutdown, during the sequestration. As a result, the agencies affected were not able to provide expert analysis because they were not able to be at the hearing to talk to the bill's impacts. The bill's incomplete legislative record was worsened by the committee markup, whereby a clumsily drafted savings clause was added. This only added to the confusion as to the purpose of the bill, negating the purpose of the legislation, which I understand now makes it a broader bill in addressing some of the issues, as have been stated by my colleague, that it is overreach by the Obama administration, thus negating the water rights.

Today, the manager's amendment, with four additional savings clauses, continues to show the magnitude of the unintended negative consequences that H.R. 3189 would have on various activities that require a Federal permit.

There is some agreement on this bill. We both agree that the starting point of this legislation involves a conflict between the Forest Service and the ski resorts, which was the focus of the hearing. Unfortunately, the Forest Service issued a declaration, a release, that mandated certain things that are objectionable to my colleagues, and they are now having to set out a new policy directive that is under consideration by the OMB. We have not waited for the results of the OMB. We can't tell until after the comment period is given to the general public, and then it can be published.

There are currently 121 ski resorts located in 13 States that are operating on Federal Forest Service land. That is public land that belongs to the general public. It doesn't belong to the ski resorts, and it doesn't belong to this body. It belongs to the people. Through long-term special use permits, these resort companies are operating on public--taxpayer--land, belonging to the American people, for private profit. In many cases, these companies purchase water rights in order to operate the resort.

The Forest Service is currently struggling with what happens with the permitting of sales of water rights.

How could the agency find a new operator if there is no water to go with that land and if it is not available, if there is no water for the land? The Forest Service issued a directive in 2011 requiring that, as a condition of these special use permits, the applicant must place its water rights in the name of the United States. Who is the United States if it isn't the American taxpayer?

To be clear, this was not because President Obama is mad with power and wants to own water rights, as some have alluded to. Rather, it was so that the Forest Service could include those water rights as part of the package when seeking a new operator and issuing a new contract for an existing ski area on public--taxpayer--land.

The court validated that directive on procedural grounds, and the Forest Service is currently working on a new directive, as they have stated in the letter to this committee. One, they have said, will not involve permit applicants transferring their water rights to the Federal Government. It would be appropriate to consider legislation that really pinpoints and clarifies that ski area permits may not be conditioned on the transfer of water rights to the government. New legislation devising a real solution to this problem would not only be welcomed, it would be a necessity. This is why we support the Polis amendment, which addresses the narrow conflict between the ski resorts and the Forest Service, which is the real conflict.

This bill would prevent the entire Department of Agriculture and the entire Department of the Interior from conditioning any use of public property on the impairment of any water right. This bill goes well beyond ski resorts and well beyond the Forest Service to fundamentally alter public--taxpayer--land management, including the management of all units of the National Park System.

If this bill were to become law, grazing permits could no longer require that some water be left in the streams for the cattle, and bypass flows would be impacted. Any and all uses of public lands which touch on water would be affected. Without the ability to condition permits or authorizations on reasonable protections for water-dependent resources, such as habitat, timber, or recreation, agencies will not be able to comply with the conservation and multiple-use mandates required currently by law. The bill is so broad and so irresponsible that, if it were to be enacted, it would mean the very end of the public lands activities it is supposed to protect, because those activities could no longer be managed responsibly.

Congress should get out of the way, respect States' rights, and allow the Forest Service to issue its new directive, which is not the taking of anyone's property. Rather, it is placing responsible conditions on a permit allowing private companies to profit from their use of public-- taxpayer--lands.

Finally, Madam Chair and Members, it is unfortunate that we are dedicating time and energy to this aspect of water management when our constituents and our communities are facing so many more important water challenges. Most of the U.S., especially the Western U.S., is suffering from drought. While 53 percent is facing moderate to exceptional drought, the entire State of California, my State, is in drought. We certainly have more fish to fry than talking about a bill that is limited to ski resorts and the Forest Service.

I do urge my colleagues to worry less about these resorts and more about the drought that is ravaging our West, the wildfires that are threatening our lives and property, and climate change, which, if we continue to fail to act or accept, makes snow skiing a thing of the past. Some would say that this goes far beyond ski resort issues and affects nationwide entities. I say let's deal with the ski issue and the Forest Service separately, and let's support the Polis amendment.

Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter dated February 11, 2014, from the National Ski Areas Association. In the very first sentence, they are including:

I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to express the

reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the bipartisan

Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630, and to

advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope.

I oppose the legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to support the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

National Ski Areas Association,

February 11, 2014.

Re: Support for Water Rights Protection Act

Rep. Scott Tipton,

Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.

Rep. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Sen. John Barrasso,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Sen. Mark Udall,

Hart Office Building Suite,

Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to

express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the

bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630,

and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At

the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep

appreciation of your effort to protect ski area water rights

from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your

leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to

working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on

behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have

had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas

have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the

Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service

water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We

have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them

over to the federal government.

As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act

would stop the federal government from illegally seizing

water rights from private parties that develop them, such as

ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment

property rights protections. The intent of the bill is

narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other

permittees that use federal land from seizure without

compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone

agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and

past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable

water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy

threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years'

worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your

intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future.

The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to

impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some

conservation groups contend that HR 3189 has a broader effect

than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would hinder

federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski areas

and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this

interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill

that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was

included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had

no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights

from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not

alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are

set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and

stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream

flow requirements and would never take action to undermine

them.

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these

changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment

to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow

focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets.

These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at

hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that

requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from

permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to

benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski

areas.

The release of a new water policy is expected from the

Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new

policy change, which we understand will not require a forced

transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this

policy will not change the need for federal legislation

however. First, the new policy is expected to apply

prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to

past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in

jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are

proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the

implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective

date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in

Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only

Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide

ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed

in the future.

After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's

water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski

areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service

to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water

rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of

partnership, and as

a way for the Forest Service to work cooperatively with ski

areas to support their viability, and the viability of

mountain communities, over the long term. The alternative

offered by ski areas was to require resorts to provide

successors in interest an option to purchase water rights at

fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We continue to

support this approach as a viable alternative that meets the

needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed flexibility,

and respects state water law.

Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is

important for everyone to remember that only a small portion

of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the

water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the

watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies

show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for

snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of

water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area,

brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and

typically released more slowly back into the watershed with

the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking

typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place,

as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the

harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole

array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store

water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year

without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to

control our water assets and investments--which will be the

outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will

enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will

also allow us to continue to provide a high quality

recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National

Forests.

In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this

issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in

cooperation to ensure the bill's passage.

Sincerely,

Michael Berry,

President.

Madam Chair, there is opposition to this bill from 90 conservation, recreation, and sportsmen groups, including the Grand County Board of Commissioners, Summit County Board of Commissioners, Eagle County Board of Commissioners, besides the other agencies.

Letters in Support of H.R. 3189

Hinsdale County; Rio Grande Watershed Association of

Conservation Districts;

Conejos County Board of County Commissioners; Colorado River

District; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National

Association of Conservation Districts; National Ski Areas

Association; National Water Resources Associations; Western

Governors Association*

*WGA has taken a neutral stance on H.R. 3189.

letters in Opposition to H.R. 3189

U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service; Grand County Board of Commissioners; Summit

County Board of Commissioners; Eagle County Board of

Commissioners.

90 conservation, recreation, and sportsman's groups including:

California Environmental Groups; Alabama Rivers Alliance;

American Bird Conservancy; American Rivers; American

Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club; Atlantic Salmon

Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;

CalTrout; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Clean Water Action;

Connecticut River Watershed Council; Deerfield River

Watershed Association; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthjustice;

Foothill Conservancy; Friends of Butte Creek; Friends of

Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Rivers of Virginia; Friends

of the White Salmon River; Gunpowder Riverkeeper; Hydropower

Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Lower Mississippi

River Foundation; Maine Rivers; National Audubon Society;

National Parks Conservation Association; Native Fish Society;

Natural Resources Defense Council; Northwest Resource

Information Center; Rivers Alliance of Connecticut;

Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; Stewards of the Lower

Susquehanna, Inc.; Tennessee Clean Water Network; Upstate

Forever; Utah Rivers Council; WaterWatch of Oregon; Yadkin

Riverkeeper Inc.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I will include in the Record a list of amendments proposed that the Rules Committee did not find in order that are asking to exempt Allegheny National Forest, Delaware River Watershed, and Delaware Water Gap from the effects of the bill.

We also have the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Long Island Sound Watershed, the Puget Sound Watershed, and Olympic National Park Watershed. They all want to be excluded from this bill.

Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for H.R. 3189--

Water Rights Protection Act

summaries derived from information provided by sponsors

[Listed in Alphabetical Order]

Cartwright (PA): No. 1--Exempts the Allegheny National

Forest, Delaware River Watershed, and Delaware Water Gap from

the effects of the bill.

Connolly (VA), Van Hollen (MD), Sarbanes (MD), Scott, Bobby

(VA), Edwards (MD), Cartwright (PA): No. 13--States that no

provisions of the bill shall affect water rights agreements

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Holt (NJ): No. 5--Exempts the Delaware River watershed from

this Act.

Israel (NY), DeLauro (CT), Esty (CT), Crowley (NY), Engel

(NY), Tonko (NY), McCarthy, Carolyn (NY), Bishop, Tim (NY),

Courtney (CT): No. 8--Exempts the Long Island Sound watershed

from any provision in the legislation.

Kilmer (WA), Heck, Denny (WA), Larsen, Rick (WA), Smith,

Adam (WA): No. 9--Clarifies that nothing in the legislation

would affect or apply to the Puget Sound watershed.

Kilmer (WA): No. 10--Affirms that nothing in the

legislation would affect or apply to the Olympic National

Park watershed.

Kilmer (WA), Huffman (CA): No. 11--Clarifies that nothing

in the legislation would impact or diminish the treaty rights

of federally recognized tribes and nothing would impact water

rights of federally recognized tribes.

Langevin (RI), Cicilline (RI): No. 7--Exempts the

Nanagansett Bay watershed and the Wood Pawcatuck watershed.

Lujan (NM): No. 2--Notification requirements for the

implementation of water settlements.

Mullin, Markwayne (OK): No. 4--Ensures that the federal

government cannot make Native America tribes, apply for or

acquire water rights under state law for the federal

government rather than acquiring the rights for themselves.

Prohibits the federal government from using permits,

approvals, and other land management agreements to take the

water rights of Native American tribes without just

compensation. Ensures that nothing in the Act limits or

expands the reserved water rights or treaty rights of

federally recognized Native American tribes.

Polis (CO), DeGette (CO), Perlmutter (CO), DelBene (WA),

Kuster, Ann (NH), Cartwright (PA), Huffman (CA): No. 5--

SUBSTITUTE Requires the U.S. Forest Service to issue a new

draft water directive within 60 days that does not condition

ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right

or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in

the name of the United States.

Speier (CA), Miller, George (CA), Lee, Barbara (CA): No.

6--Excludes the California Bay Delta system from the

provisions of the bill.

Tipton (CO): No. 12--MANAGERS Makes several clarifying

technical changes to the bill, and clarifies that the Act

will have no effect on Bureau of Reclamation contracts,

implementation of the Endangered Species Act, certain

existing federal reserved water rights, and certain

authorities under the Federal Power Act.

Tonko (NY): No. 14--LATE Ensures that nothing in this Act

will affect or apply to the Hudson and Mohawk River

watersheds.

Tsongas (MA): No. 3--States that Nothing in this Act shall

affect or apply to the Lowell National Historical Park and

Minute Man National Historical Park.

Madam Chair, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Chair, may I ask how many speakers my colleague from the other side has?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there is no taking of anybody's water rights in this case and the majority knows it. Claiming this is a taking is misleading and irresponsible.

The only way State or private water rights could, I repeat, could be transferred or diminished in any way is if the owner of those rights volunteers to a transfer or a limitation to a portion of those rights as part of a deal to receive the permission to use Federal land.

Volunteering to limit your water rights in exchange for the use of Federal land, taxpayer land, is the opposite of taking.

The various court cases the majority has thrown around deal with legitimate, I repeat, legitimate water rights issues; cases where there are overlapping or conflicting claims over the same water. This is not that type of a case.

I defy my colleagues to produce any case law holding that a decision to give up a water right, voluntarily, in order to get another Federal benefit is a taking. There are no such cases.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the base bill actually creates all kinds of uncertainty, and allows a ski area owner to sell their water rights.

If you are a local business owner in that area who depends on the ski resort business, let's say you own a restaurant or an equipment store or have a hotel, H.R. 3189 means that you have no idea, from one year to the next, whether the resort, which brings people to town, will still be operating if it has water.

If the water rights are not tied to the resort in any way, which is what H.R. 3189 wants to ensure, there is no guarantee that the owners won't sell the water, leaving the Forest Service holding a ski resort that cannot operate without that water because the water rights have been previously sold.

It is the Forest Service that is trying to create some minimal certainty that the resort would have current water rights to keep running, even if the current owners were to leave.

It is H.R. 3189 that is trying to prevent that certainty.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, H.R. 3189 turns the status quo on its head in order to provide a certain class of users a new advantage over all other users of our public lands.

It strikes me as interesting that I have heard farmers and ranchers mentioned a couple of times, although this, apparently, also affects grazing lands, which I believe farmers and ranchers

do use; and unfortunately, I am sure they have not looked at it well enough to understand what really could happen.

The status quo is that Federal land managers have to try to balance multiple competing uses of our public/taxpayer lands--recreation, timber, grazing, conservation, energy production, and the list goes on.

Under the status quo, one of the tools land managers use to achieve this balance is the ability to condition certain uses of public lands-- taxpayer lands--on an agreement to transfer or limit water rights.

If you want the ability to graze or cut timber or build a dam on public lands, you have to agree to leave some water in the river for other uses, like recreation, habitat protection, et cetera.

If that authority is taken away, as the bill would do, then certain kinds of users of our public lands get to take all the water they want, leaving everybody else literally hanging high and very dry.

The status quo is balanced. H.R. 3189 tips the scale all the way in favor of a certain class of users and turns the status quo into chaos.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague is right, but then let's hold a hearing on the water rights themselves and bring the impacted and affected parties to the table, so that there is a fair hearing which is open, transparent, and fair, but we haven't done that.

We are talking about H.R. 3189, which essentially was set up to deal with the differences between the ski resorts and the Forest Service.

Water belongs to the State, and the State gives people the right to use it. It is owned by the people of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Polis.

Madam Chair, I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to have this dialogue, and I

think it is very important for the American people to listen in and understand that one bill that was meant to cover a specific issue has been turned into a gigantic--I would say--mess.

We understand the reasoning behind it, to some extent, and we trust that our colleagues understand and are prepared to vote on something that may have unintended consequences in their own backyards.

This bill is flawed. It is flawed on process, on policy, and in claiming that it does protect State water rights. The Governors Association has indicated that they wanted to ensure that the states' water rights remain protected.

We welcome legislation that devises a real solution to a targeted problem, which the amendment that Mr. Polis has on the floor will address. We are supportive of that amendment and hope others will support his amendment, which was made in order.

We, unfortunately, feel that H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem. It creates more problems and has no chance of being enacted into law, and I trust that we will do the right thing by the people because we are talking about protecting the U.S. public, their lands, and their water.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the amendment doesn't fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed.

The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clauses that will likely be added by the manager's amendment are symptoms of the problem with the initial bill, not the solution.

If you have a 4-page bill and you need to insert five different savings clauses, you have a problem, my friends. The need to insert layer upon layer of text trying to explain that you don't mean for the bill to do this or that proves beyond any doubt that the bill is a massive and dangerous overreach.

We have no idea how these savings clauses operate in the context of the bill, but what we do know is that, even with the five savings clauses, you haven't caught all the problems.

The only responsible policy is the one offered by Mr. Polis in his substitute amendment which focuses, again, strictly on the main issue that brought this to the forefront, and that was the Forest Service and the ski resorts. Everything else is just a failed attempt to fix the bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Chair, I know I have said it before, the ski resort association wants to focus on this bill, so I am suggesting that we do approve the Polis amendment and then hold a hearing--an open hearing and a transparent hearing--for those agencies that are impacted so they may have the ability to have a word and be able to move this forward. I might add that the savings clause does not include the national parks. So all the units, Grand Canyon and others, are impacted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, when we considered the bill in committee, the majority claimed the bill had nothing to do with the ESA or the bypass flows or FERC or reclamation projects, which we pointed out that it did. Now they have a savings clause for each one of those issues. Now they admit their mistakes. Sadly, when a bill has this many holes in it, no amendment can fix them all, so this bill cannot be saved by this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment does not fix the bill because the bill cannot be fixed.

The savings clause in the base bill and the savings clause that Mr. Mullin's amendment includes are symptoms of the problem that we pointed out before in this bill, not the solution. The amendment would be the sixth savings clause added to this 4-page bill.

I do support Representative Mullin's and Representative Cole's efforts in protecting our Native American communities' water rights. As the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned at the Rules Committee last night, Native American water rights are the oldest water rights in the system. They are time immemorial, and yet we choose to ignore them.

I remember Congressman Kildee repeatedly saying, under the Constitution, they hold the first water rights in the United States, and yet we do not recognize them. Yet, since Republicans took the majority 4 years ago, there has been no legislation, no oversight hearings on any Indian water rights settlements.

If we want to support Native American water rights, Congress should consider tribal water rights legislation, enact tribal water rights legislation, and fund tribal water rights legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this bill is so badly written we really have no idea--I repeat, no idea--what impact this may have on tribes. Yes, Mr. Mullin, I totally support water rights for Native Americans. We have been working on that for at least 8 years in my subcommittee, as well as other water rights owners. We don't oppose your amendment, and we honestly really truly hope this will offer adequate protection to tribes. They deserve it. It is a long time coming. But, as we have said, the bill is beyond repair. Even if we were to adopt the amendment, H.R. 3189 is dangerous legislation that must be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment; although, I don't oppose the amendment, but I do oppose the bill, H.R. 3189.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Polis for yielding.

I must say that, again, I must direct attention to the fact that the February 11 letter from the ski resorts focuses on narrowing the bill, not the bill in total, but narrow focus.

Mr. Polis joined Mr. Tipton on this bill in an attempt to seek a reasonable solution to the problem facing ski resorts in the West, but when Mr. Polis tried to work with the majority and when we on the committee tried to work with the majority to make reasonable, responsible changes to the bill, we were told no.

We were told the majority wanted a big, broad bill that goes way beyond the resorts and way beyond the Forest Service. We pointed out that when you start drafting big, broad bills that go beyond the original issue, you will have unintended consequences, but they would not listen.

Mr. Polis' amendment is the last chance to make this a narrow, bipartisan bill that can actually pass, and we should adopt it.

Again, we don't want a job killing. We don't want a water grab. We don't want specific people to favor. I think the people need to understand it is the farmers and ranchers who benefit.

The six savings clauses the bill needs is not needed. It is in the Polis amendment because the amendment narrows the scope only to ski resorts and National Forest Service.

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. 3189.

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

President Obama has made no secret of the fact that he is willing to act unilaterally to impose new laws and regulations on the American people, declaring that he has ``a pen and a phone.''

Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous examples of what has become an Imperial Presidency. Under the administration, the reach of the Federal Government has extended into nearly every sector of our economy and ensnarled it in new red tape and regulations.

An egregious example of this is the Federal Government's concerted effort to take water away from individuals and businesses. Water is the lifeblood of communities and essential for a strong economy. Cities, ranchers, farmers, businesses, along with the jobs

they support, all depend on a stable supply of water to survive.

For over a century, there have been established laws upholding a State's right to manage its water and its water laws, but now, this administration is threatening to undermine those laws and seeks to take away private property rights--or private water rights governed under State laws.

Madam Chairman, that is why we are here today, to consider H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would protect private property rights from Federal overreach that threatens to take water supplies away from water users, such as ski areas, ranchers, cities, towns, and local conservation efforts.

This bill is responding to a very real threat as the Obama administration has sought to extort water from individuals and businesses through the permitting process.

Now, how is this done, Madam Chairman? Federal agencies are threatening to withhold permits needed to operate on Federal lands, unless private water rights are turned over to the Federal Government.

Put more simply, the Federal Government is holding necessary permits hostage unless water rights are relinquished; and they are demanding that water rights be signed over without payment, which of course is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of just compensation.

Unfortunately, these businesses that are affected need both the permits and the water in order to operate, so what the Federal Government is doing is forcing them into an impossible situation where either choice puts them in danger of losing their livelihood or their businesses.

During today's debate, we will hear specific examples of businesses and families, including ski resorts and ranchers, who have experienced this heavy-handed tactic of the Federal Government's.

It is important to be clear about the risk posed by the Federal Government's action. This is not simply a threat to ski resorts and to ski areas located on Federal land as, I am sure, some will argue on the floor here today. The known problem is much greater. We have heard testimony in our committee to that fact, and the threat is not limited to one part of the country.

If a Federal agency can demand that a ski resort in Vail or that a rancher in Utah has to hand over his water to get a Federal permit, then a Federal agency can certainly do the same thing in other States-- Ohio, Florida, West Virginia. Water may be more plentiful in these regions of the country than in the arid West, but the Federal Government's appetite has no geographical limits when it comes to expanding its regulatory control and its disrespect for private property and the livelihoods of American citizens. This is a threat being felt first by the West, but the risk is real, and it exists for the entire country.

Madam Chairman, regardless of where the Federal Government seeks to take water and from whom it is trying to take it, it is simply wrong, and it must be stopped. That is why H.R. 3189 is necessary, and it is why the bill is endorsed by numerous national and regional groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Ski Areas Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the Natural Water Resources Association, and others.

Now, in the course of the debate, there will be claims and assertions made today that this bill is overly broad and that it will have a whole range of unintended consequences. Madam Chairman, I certainly don't blame those who support the Federal takings of private water rights from wanting to change the subject, but this bill is very focused. It has only one consequence, and that consequence is absolutely intended. It stops the Federal Government from taking the water of American citizens without paying for it. It does nothing else.

In fact, this bill carefully states that this prohibition will not affect irrigation water contracts, FERC licensing, endangered species recovery, national parks, or any other legal authorities. Important environmental restoration, wildlife protection and conservation work that has been occurring for years in a positive, cooperative manner-- and that is whether it is in Puget Sound, which is in my State, in the Chesapeake Bay, nearby here, or in the Florida Everglades--will all continue, and all are protected. Such efforts will not be changed by this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank and recognize the sponsor of this legislation, our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), for all of his hard work in advancing this important, commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

It is time for the legislative branch to exert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in the imperial overreach of the executive branch and this administration. No law gives Federal agencies the authority to take private property rights as the administration is seeking to do. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such takings. It is time to put an end to such tactics, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong signal to this administration--to leave private property rights alone.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I have at least four others, besides myself, that want to address this very important issue.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith)

another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), who I think was a member of the committee but is not anymore.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chairman, let me just comment on a few points here that were made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. There was some concern about the timing of the hearing and the people who were invited.

I just want to make this point: when the hearing was held, we have to have advance notice. We had witnesses coming in from across the country, so we are going to have the hearing on the day we said because of the expense incurred by those private citizens who wanted to come here and testify to help protect private water rights.

The second point is this was a bipartisan bill, as my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Polis) admitted. He was an original cosponsor of the bill. Maybe that was a reason why my friends on the other side of the aisle did not call a witness for or against the original legislation.

I just wanted to make that point. The hearing was scheduled, and it had to go through because of the expense of the private citizens coming in to testify.

I want to make another point, too, that some of my colleagues have made. Several of them have said that this legislation redefines Federal water rights.

Madam Chairman, that is simply not true. If they read the bill, they would see that the definition is for the purpose of this act only, meaning that the definition is only for this act, so that doesn't hold up either.

Just about all of my colleagues on the other side that talked about the Federal lands and so forth--I will acknowledge that this is about Federal activity on Federal lands, but nowhere--nowhere did my colleagues suggest or say that the Federal Government had the water rights.

Why? Because that is states' rights; and as my colleague from Wyoming said: Yes, it is Federal land; but it is State water, and you have to mesh those together.

And finally--I think this is probably more important than anything else, and frankly, a debate like this has been going on for some time.

We agree--we agree, both sides--that ski resorts have been potentially compromised by the threat of the Federal Government saying ``no permit unless you give up water.'' Both sides agree on that. The question is, What is the remedy?

The big difference I think between the two sides is this. Their remedy is, well, the rulemaking isn't over. Let's find out what the rulemaking is, and then we will respond to it. Our side takes a different approach. Our side says wait a minute. We are the House of Representatives. We are part of the Congress. We make the law.

That is what this legislation does. It makes the law saying the Federal Government cannot extort, through the permitting process, State water rights. It is as simple as that. And so if we are going to continue to have the debate in this House on divisions between the two parties and what their philosophy is, frankly, I welcome this, because it appears every time we have a debate similar to this, their side says let the bureaucracy write the laws. We say wait a minute. That is not the way it is supposed to be. We are the Congress. We write the laws. That is what this debate is about here today, and I look forward to the amendment process.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been characterized as a Western piece of legislation, but as Mr. Woodall says, indeed, it is not. It affects all water rights which are the province of the States.

It is good legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his work on the underlying bill and his amendment.

I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his hard work on behalf of Native Americans.

American Indian tribes rely on their water rights to provide critical supplies to their people and to promote and expand their local economies. These rights must be protected from Federal regulations that are designed to take water without paying for that water, and this amendment does just that.

This forward-looking amendment simply allows tribes to have the same protections that are afforded to others in the bill by prohibiting the Federal Government from using routine permits to extort private water rights. It also preserves the water rights guaranteed to tribes by treaty and by Federal reservation. Although this bill already does the latter, we believe it is important to clarify this important protection, so I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for recognizing that the Federal Government's taking of water rights and economic collateral of ski areas is wrong. His amendment also acknowledges that Congress must act to provide long-term certainty rather than rely on vague assurances from bureaucrats that are subject to change at any time.

I also appreciate the gentleman's initial support for the bill as introduced. His attention to this matter and willingness to fight for the ski areas in his district is commendable and has certainly been noted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

However, the amendment he offers today completely undermines the bill he originally added his name to in support. The bill, as introduced and in its current improved form, protects private property rights for all--Madam Chairman, all--water users across the country, not just ski areas. By limiting the bill's scope to ski area permits by the Forest Service, the Polis amendment transforms the bill so that it favors one special group at the expense of all others. Ski areas under his amendment would be protected, but any other water owner or user anywhere in the country would be subject to Federal extortion. It frees the Federal Government to continue targeting the water rights of family farms and ranches and municipalities.

Madam Chair, it is not just wrong for the Federal Government to take water away from ski areas, it is wrong to do it to anyone. There should be no discrimination in this manner. The Polis amendment would eliminate protections for farms and ranches, our Nation's food suppliers. That is why the American Farm Bureau opposes this amendment and supports the underlying bill. The Farm Bureau's members have already been victimized by this Federal overreach, and this amendment would allow that to continue.

Because the Polis amendment is a complete substitute text for the underlying bill, it would strike out all of the protections currently in the bill. The Polis amendment would even eliminate the protections for the Indian treaty rights and Indian water rights that the House just adopted a moment ago with the Mullin amendment.

It is true that the ski areas have suffered greatly at the hands of this Federal overreach. For this reason, the underlying bill does fully protect ski areas, along with every other water

user. How many times do we have to say that? It protects ski areas and all water users, and that is why, as has been mentioned several times, the National Ski Areas Association wrote in February after the committee markup that it strongly supports the bill.

When it comes to protecting the water and private property of American citizens, the Congress shouldn't be picking winners and losers; and Congress should be making the law for that protection, not the bureaucrats. The legislative branch should act to protect all citizens of the executive branch.

It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am prepared to close. I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I have to say, the debate on the underlying bill in this amendment I find rather interesting--no, maybe bizarre is better than that.

The issue here is whether we should protect the State's responsibility to write water law or allow the Federal Government to extort from private individuals that water. That is what the issue is all about here.

He had bipartisan support when the bill was heard in committee, but then it changed for some reason. Now, we have in front of us the Polis amendment, which would very narrowly put this protection only to ski areas and not to everybody else that has private property rights.

The consequences if this were to become law--which it is not going to, I am convinced, with this amendment--but the effect of this would be this: okay. Ski areas are protected this year. Next year, it will be a rancher that is abused, so we will come back, and we will write a law to protect the rancher.

Next, it will be a water conservation district someplace that will be affected because of the directive, so we will come back and fix that. Then it will be some municipality someplace that will be affected because they don't have water rights because it was extorted by the Federal Government, so we will have a fix for that.

Madam Chairman, there is a better way to do that. Let's just simply respect states' rights to regulate water law and to codify that with this language.

Finally, just let me make this observation. The effect of adopting this, as I mentioned in my opening statement, as it relates to tribal rights, what this amendment really does more than anything else is it puts ski resorts' water rights above tribal rights. That is really what the adoption of this amendment does.

So I would say that the underlying bill is a bill that is the responsibility of us as the legislative branch in this Congress. It deserves our support. This amendment does nothing to advance that at all and should be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I want to make it clear that I was an original sponsor of this bill. Like my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), I wanted to address the 2011 directive as it affected ski resorts.

However, this bill, in markup and through the manager's amendment, became worse. We were unable to get the improvements that we needed to narrow the scope; and it became a Republican job-killing, water- grabbing bill, which was not the original intent.

Even the areas where the intent was to help the ski areas--in Summit County and Eagle County in my district, in Pitkin County in Mr. Tipton's district--the counties have all come out against this very bill.

It is a Republican water-grabbing, job-killing bill, and absent the amendment that I proposed, it is not something that I can support. I encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle who value recreational opportunities, like fishing and white-water rafting, to join me in opposing this bill, unless the Polis amendment is incorporated into the bill.

We will soon begin a debate on that amendment. This debate would focus the actual bill to fulfill its purpose, and I hope that this body will adopt it.

Madam Chair, I want to be clear that the concerns are by no means limited to the Endangered Species Act. The Republicans may care about endangered species, but they don't care about jobs. The Forest Service, the BLM, Interior, and Agriculture agencies all have relevant authority with regard to bypass flows. None of those are mentioned under this particular manager's amendment.

What this manager's amendment shows is Republicans care more about endangered species than they do about jobs in our mountain resort areas. This manager's amendment added the term ``impairment of title.'' We wanted this limited to ``transfer of title'' because ``impairment of title'' actually expands the scope of the bill from the original bill. In addition, the so-called savings clause actually appears to negate the very bill that it appears in.

This takes a bill that we had offered language to the committee and to Representative Tipton to make this a bipartisan bill. I think it could have very closely unanimously passed the House, certainly enough to pass a suspension, and instead they made a bill that even the very ski areas that they are claiming to help--actually, all the counties that I have that have ski resorts actually oppose this job-killing Republican water grab bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), mentioned the National Ski Areas Association, and I include their February 11 letter for the Record. It states here, in part:

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill.

I believe that my amendment is consistent with the position of the National Ski Areas Association.

I am a strong believer in the original purpose of this bill. Yes, the U.S. Forest Service overstepped its authority by issuing a policy that requires ski area permittees to transfer ownership of their water rights to the Federal Government.

Ski areas are the lifeblood of our mountain communities in Colorado and many communities across the Nation. Their economic viability and strength is extraordinarily important for working families. Ski areas have invested hundreds of millions of dollars of capital, and they can't be simply required to hand over their water rights to the Federal Government. This harmful policy hinders ski resort growth and expansion and harms the economy. My amendment fixes it.

There is a legitimate issue here, and Congress could be solving it in a bipartisan manner. We agree that the 2011 U.S. Forest Service directive is a problem. This could have been a suspension bill, but H.R. 3189, despite our best efforts from my side of the aisle, does not reflect a bipartisan agreement to the water rights issue.

There is not one comparable Federal water rights directive like the U.S. Forest Service directive, but the Republicans couldn't help themselves here, and they have, instead of fixing an issue, created a job-killing, water-grabbing Republican bill that will destroy jobs in Colorado and in mountain resorts across the country.

This process has become convoluted and the bill overly broad. This legislation only serves to cast doubt on the complicated laws and precedents and authorities that make up our Nation's and States' water laws, and that it is critical to remain stable and predictable over time. This expansive legislation undermines jobs and recreational opportunities, from white-water rafting to fishing. Sportsmen's groups oppose this legislation. Ski counties in my district oppose this legislation.

It was brought up in committee yesterday, could the opposition be ``political.'' Well, I want to be clear, one of the ski counties in my district, all three of the commissioners are Republican. Grand County, they oppose this bill unanimously, as do Summit County and Eagle County. Rafting and paddling groups oppose this legislation because it impacts our world-class, white-water runs.

I hope we can fix this bill. We have tried hard throughout this process to offer language in the committee that would make this a bipartisan bill, to offer language to the chief sponsor, Representative Tipton. Up to this point, we have been rebuffed. This is our last hope to fix this bill and create something that actually responds to the flawed Forest Service directive of 2011. Without this change, this bill has nothing to do with the 2011 directive. It is just talk. It doesn't even respond to the issue it is designed to solve, which is why some of the very same ski communities that wanted a response to the 2011 directive don't even support this bill at this point.

Since ski area water rights are a valuable asset that need to be protected, I am proud to have offered this amendment with Representative Kuster, Representative DeGette, Representative Perlmutter, Representative DelBene, Representative Cartwright, and Representative Huffman that would fix H.R. 3189, return the bill to its original purpose, lead to a strong House vote, and ensure that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

National Ski Areas Association,

February 11, 2014.

Re Support for Water Rights Protection Act.

Hon. Scott Tipton,

Cannon HOB,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jared Polis,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Barrasso,

Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mark Udall,

Hart Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Gentlemen: I am writing on behalf of the ski industry to

express the reasons ski areas strongly support passage of the

bipartisan Water Rights Protection Act, H.R. 3189/S. 1630,

and to advocate changes to the bill to narrow its scope. At

the outset, the ski industry would like to express our deep

appreciation of your efforts to protect ski area water rights

from federal encroachment over the past couple of years. Your

leadership on protecting water rights and your commitment to

working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem on

behalf of ski areas and other permittees on federal land have

had very positive and real effects to date. While ski areas

have enjoyed a long and successful partnership with the

Forest Service spanning almost eight decades, Forest Service

water policy is an issue on which we simply do not agree. We

have invested too much in water rights to simply hand them

over to the federal government.

As you are well aware, the Water Rights Protection Act

would stop the federal government from illegally seizing

water rights from private parties that develop them, such as

ski areas, in violation of State water law and 5th Amendment

property rights protections. The intent of the bill is

narrow--to protect valuable assets of ski areas and other

permittees that use federal land from seizure without

compensation by the federal government. Essentially everyone

agrees on the need for this protection, given recent (and

past) Forest Service policy that demands transfer of valuable

water rights to the U.S. without compensation. This policy

threatened to rock the foundation of over a hundred years'

worth of water law in the West, and again, thanks to your

intervention, beneficial changes are expected in the future.

The intention of the Water Rights Protection Act is not to

impact stream health or aquatic species in any way. Some

conservation groups contend that H.R. 3189 has a broader

effect than simply protecting water rights, and in fact would

hinder federal efforts to protect stream health and fish. Ski

areas and other stakeholders strongly disagree with this

interpretation of the bill and would never support a bill

that had this result. In fact, a ``savings clause'' was

included in the bill to explicitly state that the measure had

no other impacts than to protect permittees' water rights

from forced transfers. More importantly, the bill does not

alter in any way the minimum stream flow protections that are

set and enforced by the states on virtually every river and

stream. Ski areas support and abide by these minimum stream

flow requirements and would never take action to undermine

them.

However, to make it abundantly clear that ski areas have a

narrow and pointed agenda with respect to this legislation

and that we are committed to maintaining stream and aquatic

species health, we are now advocating changes to the bill to

narrow its scope even further. These changes include

narrowing the scope of the bill to apply just to the U.S.

Forest Service, and clarifying that the bill prohibits forced

transfers of ownership of water rights to the United States

by inserting the term ``title'' into the bill. We offer these

changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment

to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow

focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets.

These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at

hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that

requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from

permittees to the United States. The bill will continue to

benefit all permittees on Forest Service lands, not just ski

areas.

The release of a new water policy is expected from the

Forest Service sometime in 2014. Ski areas welcome this new

policy change, which we understand will not require a forced

transfer of ownership of water rights. The release of this

policy will not change the need for federal legislation

however. First, the new policy is expected to apply

prospectively, such that existing water rights subject to

past Forest Service water clauses could continue to be in

jeopardy of a taking by the Forest Service. Ski areas are

proposing an amendment to the bill to protect against the

implementation of such clauses beginning with the effective

date of this bill. Ski areas have experienced four changes in

Forest Service water policy in the last ten years. Only

Congress can help stop the pendulum from swinging and provide

ski areas the kind of stability they need to grow and succeed

in the future.

After prevailing on our challenge of the Forest Service's

water rights takings policy in federal court in 2012, ski

areas offered an alternative approach for the Forest Service

to consider that would not involve forced transfers of water

rights. We offered this alternative in the spirit of

partnership, and as a way for the Forest Service to work

cooperatively with ski areas to support their viability, and

the viability of mountain communities, over the long term.

The alternative offered by ski areas was to require resorts

to provide successors in interest an option to purchase water

rights at fair market value upon sale of a ski area. We

continue to support this approach as a viable alternative

that meets the needs of the agency, provides ski areas needed

flexibility, and respects state water law.

Ski areas are great stewards of water resources. It is

important for everyone to remember that only a small portion

of water that is used for snowmaking is consumed. Most of the

water diverted from streams for snowmaking returns to the

watershed. Although it varies from region to region, studies

show that approximately 80 percent of the water used for

snowmaking returns to the watershed. Since the majority of

water used for snowmaking is water purchased by a ski area,

brought onsite through diversions, stored on-slope, and

typically released more slowly back into the watershed with

the seasonal melting of the winter snowpack, snowmaking

typically benefits the watershed in which it is taking place,

as well as downstream users, and can help counteract the

harmful effects of drought. In addition to using a whole

array of conservation measures, many resorts impound or store

water in reservoirs for use during low flow times of the year

without affecting fish or aquatic habitat. The ability to

control our water assets and investments--which will be the

outcome of passage of the Water Rights Protection Act--will

enable us to continue this stewardship in the future. It will

also allow us to continue to provide a high quality

recreation opportunity for millions of people on the National

Forests.

In closing, we thank you for your work to date on this

issue, and we look forward to continuing to work together in

cooperation to ensure the bill's passage.

Sincerely,

Michael Berry,

President.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Ski area water rights are valuable assets that must be protected. Rather than disguise that in a catchall Republican job-killing water- grabbing bill, we have the opportunity through the Polis-DeGette- Perlmutter-DelBene-Kuster-Cartwright-Huffman amendment for this House to come together

around something that helps the economy grow in our ski resort areas across the country.

As so many times on issues of even greater importance, there is a fork in the road for this House, a decision to make, between the partisan-charged route of job-destroying Republican water-grabbing legislation or the opportunity to fix this bill and come together to make sure that our ski resort communities are secure in their water rights and can continue to justify their capital investments and grow. That is the choice we have with the Polis amendment.

This amendment improves the bill. It helps turn the bill from a controversial bill into something that I think the vast majority of this body can and will agree on.

The amendment ensures that any U.S. Forest Service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer of title of any water right or require any ski area permittee to acquire a water right in the name of the United States.

That is the issue from the directive on 2011 that gives us a reason to even have the bill; but instead of addressing that issue in a focused way, this bill has tried to essentially rewrite centuries of water law in a superficial 2-page bill that has the impact of destroying jobs in Colorado and other mountain resort communities across the country.

We can and we must do better--better for my district in Colorado. Many of the ski resort counties--like Pitkin County represented by Mr. Tipton, and Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties that I represent--that benefit directly from the ski resort economy have come out opposed to this bill because it actually hurts their economy rather than helps it.

If the very folks that this bill was supposedly written to help oppose this bill, what on Earth are we doing here?

Thankfully, we have an amendment right now that can fix this bill. We tried in committee, we tried through the manager's amendment, and now, we are trying on the floor. Let's do it. Let's fix the bill.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and, unless it is incorporated, oppose the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, after listening to our Democrat colleague's statement, probably the best thing that we can do to be able to allay their fears is for them to read the bill. It actually protects private property rights, and let me fill in the balance of the story from the letter that you just cited:

The ski areas are saying that they strongly support the passage of the bipartisan Water Rights Act, H.R. 3189.

I would like to submit for the Record letters from over 40 different organizations--farmers, ranchers, ski areas, municipalities--that are supporting this legislation to be able to protect private property rights in the United States.

Madam Chair, the fear in Washington is palpable. Yesterday, we heard from the White House of the threat of a veto, a veto against a piece of legislation which is just codifying what is protected in the Constitution--private property rights in this country. There is going to be a headline in tomorrow's paper. With the affirmative passage of this legislation, it will read that the House of Representatives stood with the American people--stood with private property rights--to stop a job-killing Federal water grab. That is what this legislation is about.

A very clear choice exists today. You can choose to stand with farmers, with ranchers, with municipalities, with our ski areas to be able to protect the Constitution regarding the Fifth Amendment for just compensation, or you can embrace the heavy hand of government and support a job-killing Federal water grab. That is the clear choice that we face today.

This bill is narrow in scope. In fact, the manager's amendment that I will be putting forward is actually going to make sure that many of the concerns that we have just heard expressed are reasserted in that legislation to be able to protect the Endangered Species Act, to make sure that authorities are not currently under law or exceeded, and to make sure that our tribes are actually protected from the heavy hand of government being used as a tool for another Federal water grab.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation--legislation that is designed to stand for the very principle that we have in this country of private property rights.

Protect the water of the West. Protect that private property right. This is simple, 2-page legislation.

Madam Chair, this is legislation which serves the interests of this country, serves the interests of the West, and I ask for its adoption.

Colorado Cattlemen's

Association

Arvada, CO, March 12, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The

Colorado Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and Colorado Public

Lands Council strongly support the Water Rights Protection

Act (WRPA), (H.R. 3189). The CCA and PLC represent Colorado's

public and private lands ranching industries through a

grassroots network of affiliates and individual members. Many

of our members hold private water rights on federal lands,

which serve as an integral part of their operations; thus,

these water rights keep our members in business and rural

communities thriving. However, landowners face an

unprecedented threat to the future of their water rights on

lands managed by the USFS and potentially other federal

agencies.

H.R. 3189, introduced by Congressmen Scott Tipton (R-

Colo.), Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Tom

McClintock (R-Calif.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) disallows

the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management from seizing water

rights without just compensation. An issue that arose in a

USFS directive applicable to ski areas was seen by industry

as an issue that could threaten all water users, including

ranchers, as they depend on water rights on public land (and

private) to keep their businesses viable. It is important

that H.R. 3189 pass without limitation to specific

industries--ensuring ranchers have access to the water rights

they own, maintain and have developed.

We support an amendment by Representative Tipton that would

make revisions to the legislation which would clarify the

intent of the bill. We also understand that several

additional amendments have been submitted that would too

narrowly focus the legislation so as to not protect livestock

producers, and one amendment in particular that would cause

the legislation to become applicable only to ski operations.

CCA and PLC strongly oppose any amendment with exclusive

language that will jeopardize the efficacy of the bill for

our constituency, ranchers. Our members face the same threats

as ski companies do--perhaps, with more at stake, as they are

individuals and families depending on these water rights for

their livelihood. It is important to include all industries

that may be impacted in the legislation, to keep our rural

communities thriving. Rep. Tipton's bill accomplishes the

purpose of protecting all water right holders, including

ranchers.

There is no justification to include an amendment that will

only protect one type of water use, and we strongly urge all

members of the House to vote against any such amendment.

We thank you for your attention to this crucial issue, and

for supporting America's ranchers as they continue to be an

essential part of rural communities and stewards of our

public lands.

Sincerely,

Gene Manuello,

President,

Colorado Cattlemen's Association.

Tim Canterbury,

Chair,

Colorado Public Lands Council.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to further strengthen and improve this bipartisan bill. As we heard during general debate, the bill has one goal: to eliminate Federal extortion of private property.

The Federal Government cannot and should not take and seize what it does not own without compensation, but that has been happening, and the threat continues to exist for a host of individuals and businesses who responsibly use our public lands for multiple purposes.

This bill ends this Federal property rights grab; however, we just heard a litany of charges that the bill impacts other Federal actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill already has a savings clause ensuring that any existing Federal authorities are not impacted. Importantly, the Federal Government does not have the authority to take private property rights without just compensation; but, to further clarify, my amendment reiterates the specific actions into the bill-- the protection of existing Federal water contracts.

The Colorado River Water District, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, all organizations whose members have contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation, already support this bill, and that should have been enough. Yet we heard rhetoric from the other side today that water contracts are in danger despite the ardent support of water organizations.

This amendment specifically reiterates this protection, ensuring implementation of the Endangered Species Act and any flows needed for the species, the protection of reserved water rights for national parks and other Federal lands, and continuing the hydropower relicensing process for non-Federal dams. These additions to the bill are a simple reiteration of protections already built into the bipartisan bill.

Yet, in a good-faith effort to dispel any myths, I offer these provisions to ensure, once and for all, that the only thing the bill does is protect private water rights owners from being extorted by the Federal Government through underhanded administrative means.

I certainly yield to the chairman.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I suppose I can bring some good news. It is not a 5-page bill, but actually a 3-page bill that we have actually put forward.

What I think we are really frustrated about is that we often hear from our colleagues that they want to be able to have bipartisanship. They are concerned about endangered species. While it is already protected in the bill, we add a further savings clause to be able to protect it.

They are concerned about the Federal Government being able to continue operations under legal authority--already protected in the original bill. We put in an additional savings clause to be able to address that.

We are concerned even more than they are, apparently, about standing up for Native American tribes in some proposed amendments that we are going to be putting forward to protect them from using Native tribes as a tool to extort water for the Federal Government.

This is a commonsense, sensible piece of legislation. Our colleagues want to say that it is expanded. Actually, I have the original bill in my hand. They say it is simply about ski resorts. We have common ground. I, too, want to be able to protect ski resorts, but I am not willing to sacrifice, on the altar of the Federal Government, our farm and ranch communities in addition to our municipalities.

Looking at the original bill, it doesn't mention ski areas once, yet an author of an amendment today said it has become more broad. Show me how.

This is a good piece of legislation. The manager's amendment addresses their very concerns.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time remains?

Madam Chair, for the point of clarity, to ease the concerns of my colleague from Colorado, the National Ski Areas Association endorses this bill today. That has not changed. Also, to alleviate the concerns that you just demonstrated, no existing authorities will be impacted under this legislation. No existing authorities will be impacted. No bypass flows will be impacted.

Effectively, what this bill is doing, Madam Chair, is we are codifying existing practice, which I think we all agree is a desirable thing to have continue.

This is about political theater. The job-killing part of what is happening right now is being conducted by the Federal Government. They are killing jobs with a Federal Government water grab.

Either you stand with the farmers, the ranchers, and long-held practices of the West or you don't. If you don't, I do, and that is what this bill continues to support.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I will refer my colleagues to the text of the bill. No Federal water rights that they currently have are going to be impaired. That includes national parks.

We continue to hear about the upcoming Polis amendment. The original bill that Mr. Polis and I introduced never specifically mentioned just ski areas. It talks about any permit. So if you care about farmers, if you care about ranchers, if you care about municipalities, and if you care about ski areas, which we all share, let's protect those private property rights from Federal extortion.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We continue to hear letters of support, ironically, out of my colleague from Colorado's home district. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District supports this legislation as we put it forward.

Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Water Congress, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Family Farm Alliance support this bill.

When we look at the original incorporating legislation that my colleague and I introduced, it doesn't fit the narrow scope that they now want to talk about; so we do have to ask that question: Why are they so willing to be going to disregard farmers, ranchers, municipalities? Aren't they worthy of concern? I believe that they actually are.

We actually just received an email that came from the National Ski Association, which is dated March 12, supporting the bill with the Tipton manager's amendment. We are addressing their specific concern, but we aren't stopping there.

We think that that right to private property is inviolable, something that must be protected. If our friends want to say that farmers and ranchers and communities aren't worth protecting, we say they are.

That is what this legislation will do. We have worked with the minority. We have got a bipartisan piece of legislation that is standing up for those private property rights and to be able to assure that that constitutional right to receive just compensation that it is taking is actually preserved.

Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this amendment.

Well, here we are again. We had a real problem. The Forest Service did overreach and trigger this issue.

Later on, we will have an amendment offered by Mr. Polis from Colorado--whose ski areas originally brought this issue to him and who now opposes this bill--to narrow the scope of this bill down to assure that the Forest Service doesn't re-propose the rule which they have withdrawn, which would have caused the problem.

The rule was offered. There was litigation. A new rule was begun. The Forest Service withdrew the rule. There is no rule pending. But we are going to pass legislation that affects all water rights in the Western United States because of a problem that doesn't currently exist.

This is fairly extraordinary. Because we held a hearing on this when the government was shut down, not very many people knew about or got to participate in the hearing. I was there. I read the bill. That is a bad habit I have. I pointed out that the bill was so broadly written that it would impact any and all Federal actions that have to do with water in the United States of America. That goes way beyond ski areas and water rights. It goes way beyond farmers or individual property rights. It has untold consequences.

As a consequence, Republicans at the time denied it. But now this bill has six savings clauses. What does that mean?

Well, the bill was so broadly and poorly drafted to begin with, they now are carving out six exemptions to say, Oh, we didn't mean to say we would take away tribes' water rights; we didn't mean to say that we couldn't have any control of Bureau of Reclamation projects and deal with flood control. Oh, we didn't mean this or that. So there are six savings clauses in this bill because it is so poorly and broadly drafted and has so many unfathomable and unintended effects. Then there is the sixth savings clause which says this bill does nothing.

Now how could that be? Well, because we are here about headlines. We are here about a headline that will be meaningless by some gullible reporter somewhere who actually believes what they are saying on that side of the aisle.

Here is the final savings clause of this unbelievably poorly drafted bill with unbelievable, unintended consequences:

Nothing in this act limits or expands any existing

authority of the Secretaries . . .

That is, Interior and Agriculture.

. . . to condition any permit, approval, license, lease,

allotment, easement, right-of-way, or other land use or

occupancy agreement on Federal lands subject to the

respective jurisdictions.

So in the body of the bill they create a whole bunch of problems by threatening concessionaires in parks, issues relating to the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, and a whole host of projects that relate to use of the water in the West. It is a very sensitive issue, the use of the water in the West. Then they carve out five particular exceptions, which are really hot button issues. Then they have this uber exception which says this bill doesn't do anything.

So what does the bill do? Well, that is the whatever thousand-dollar question here today. It may do something unbelievably destructive to private property rights.

On that side of the aisle we hear about this all the time. A couple of weeks ago, they passed another show bill pretending to deal with the drought in California by preempting 100 years of water law in the State of California. The Federal Government preempting it.

Now they are going to fight for water rights in the West--or, at least that is the headline they hope they get out of this. But that is not what they are doing because for the first time this bill has a Federal definition in statute of water right, which would seem to preempt or contradict the States. But it has sort of got a savings clause. So it says we are creating a new Federal water right, but it really doesn't mean anything because we are not affecting the States. And oh, by the way, we have got a clause at the end saying we are not doing anything at all anyway.

So why are we here? We are here because there was a narrow issue which we could have, in a bipartisan way, agreed to deal with. It could have been what is called a suspension bill. We probably wouldn't have even had a vote on it on the floor of the House--one of those routine bills we pass generally on Mondays or Tuesdays, travel days, requiring a two-thirds vote because they are noncontroversial.

It could have been done that way. But no, that wouldn't have got a headline. It would have solved a problem--a problem that used to exist and doesn't existing anymore and might exist in the future. It would have solved that problem if it ever existed again, if the Forest Service proposed the rule again, which they aren't going to. But let's just say some future administration chose to do that. We could have preempted them that way.

But no, we couldn't just do that because how could you come here and say you are fighting for cattlemen and you are fighting for agriculture and you are fighting for the little guy and private property rights and all those wonderful buzz words around here, when you are not really doing that, but get an undeserved headline out of it if you find a gullible reporter.

That is why we are here today. It is kind of a waste of time, to tell the truth. If you want to fix the bill and potentially fix a future problem if they do go after the ski area water rights again, vote for the Polis amendment. Go back to the narrow scope of the bill. That is where we started.

If that is adopted, that would be great, and we could vote for it. If that is not adopted, I would recommend that Members think long and hard about it because you may be causing unintended effects with this bill by defining a Federal water right that potentially preempts and upends hundreds of years of precedent in the Western United States and causes untold damage. It will certainly make a lot of lawyers happy, but it is not probably going to make your farmers and ranchers happy, who you think you are pleasing here today.