Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act Of 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the closed rule and passage of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Expansion Act of 2009. My opposition to H.R. 2442 is not due to the projects authorized in the legislation--they are meritorious…
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the closed rule and passage of H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Expansion Act of 2009. My opposition to H.R. 2442 is not due to the projects authorized in the legislation--they are meritorious projects, worthy of consideration by this body. However, the San Francisco Bay area is not the only area in California that needs additional water. Only 2 hours away from San Francisco, California's Central Valley is literally dying of dehydration and yet this Congress has ignored every plea for help from the people of the valley and those of us who are fortunate enough to represent that region.
The San Joaquin Valley is the fruit-basket of the Nation, producing over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in America. Ninety-nine percent of all almonds and walnuts are produced in the Central Valley, while over 90 percent of tomatoes, pistachios, plums and strawberries are produced in the State of California. However, without water for the farmers the whole Nation suffers. Without California's agriculture production, there is a significant national security risk--we would be forced to import foreign produce that does not meet the same quality and food safety standards that California produce does.
Because of radical environmentalists and the actions of Federal agencies based on unreliable and questionable science, the San Joaquin Valley is now suffering from a man-made drought. Hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water that was formerly delivered to the farmers in the Central Valley are being sent to the ocean in an attempt to protect a 3-inch minnow, the Delta Smelt. Ironically, while the restrictions on pumping are doing nothing to stop the declining numbers of Delta Smelt, they are significantly contributing to the declining number of farmers and jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. Farmers must come before fish.
I offered two amendments to this bill which would have assured that the urgent needs of the San Joaquin Valley are met, through the Two Gates project in the delta and temporarily waiving the Endangered Species Act to increase delta water deliveries for storage in the San Joaquin Valley. Neither of my amendments would have authorized the spending of taxpayer dollars. Once again the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives denied these amendments, denying relief to the ravaged San Joaquin Valley.
Time and time again during this Congress my valley colleagues and I have offered bills and amendments to address the government created drought in the San Joaquin Valley and time and time again we have been denied the courtesy of a simple legislative hearing, let alone a markup or vote. After so many attempts to save California agriculture, I am left with no alternative but to believe that the Democrat leadership of this Congress, under direction from environmentalists, is bent on destroying the largest economic engine in California.
There is always a lot of talk about special interests controlling policy decisions in Congress, and I would be remiss not to say that the elite environmental community is one of the largest and currently most influential special interests around. They have worked very hard and spent a lot of money to ensure that a 3-inch fish has more rights than the farmers and farm workers in my district. To me, and any American with an ounce of common sense, that action is absolutely unconscionable, but apparently not to the majority of Congress.
The water crisis in California must be addressed in a holistic manner and while I am more than happy to sit down with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work on long term solutions to California's aged water infrastructure system, the people of the valley need help now. Therefore, I am opposing this bill because it contains $38 million worth of projects that benefit the San Francisco Bay area while denying projects that would not cost any taxpayer dollars and would benefit the distressed San Joaquin Valley.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I oppose both the rule and the passage of H.R. 2442 and urge my colleagues to join me.