Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Valadao's bill, H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, is a northern California drought relief bill; it isn't a California drought…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman Valadao's bill, H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, is a northern California drought relief bill; it isn't a California drought relief act.
It was introduced last week without hearings, without markups, without consultation with the House Democrats, and without any consultation or input from local water agencies, State agencies, cities, and/or tribes.
This bill is being rushed to the floor without the input of critical California leaders throughout the State. It focuses primarily on providing more Bay-
Delta water to Central Valley farmers at the expense of other users. This bill would require mandatory increases in pumping to Central Valley agriculture, which could force water managers throughout the State to cut water deliveries to southern California, to other urban water users, and, of course, to fisheries, which is a mainstay of many of the tribes in California.
This could also lead to less fresh water in the delta and higher levels of salt and contamination in the water being pumped down to southern California.
The White House states the President will veto this bill because ``it fails to equitably address critical elements of California's complex water challenges,'' and ``the bill appears to include a number of potentially conflicting mandates which can cause confusion and undermine environmental laws, making it ripe for future litigation.''
Senator Boxer says she opposes the bill because ``it could reignite the water wars by overriding critical State and Federal protections of all of California.''
Mr. Speaker, I have some of the statements of opposition. One of them is The Sacramento Bee who has come out opposing the bill because ``any legislation affecting California water policy deserves a full hearing with input from the varied interests in northern California, the Central Valley, and the south.''
Mr. Speaker, we must work in a bipartisan manner to address this drought crisis for the whole State and certainly not in secret and behind closed doors.
I have introduced H.R. 5363, the Water in the 21st Century Act, and Representative Huffman has introduced H.R. 4239, which would provide drought relief to all of California with its water conservation programs, its water recycling projects, its groundwater improvement operations and storm water capture solutions, including desalination and title XVI.
House Democratic proposals have been excluded from this bill, H.R. 5781. There have been past attempts in past Congresses to pass certainly some proposals our legislation has proposed today, and it has failed.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record statements of opposition to this bill from the White House, from Senator Boxer, The Sacramento Bee, American Rivers, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Golden Gate Salmon Association, the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association, and the California Environmental Water Caucus, just to name a few.
Mr. Speaker, I urge us not to pass this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, December 5, 2014.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 5781--The California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
(Rep. Valadao, R-CA, and 6 cosponsors)
The Administration opposes H.R. 5781 because it fails to
equitably address critical elements of California's complex
water challenges. The Administration appreciates the efforts
by the bill authors to address concerns raised by the
Administration regarding H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act. However, because
H.R. 5781 makes operational determinations regarding the use
of limited water resources during the ongoing drought, and
contains many new provisions that could lead to unintended
consequences or further litigation, the Administration cannot
support the bill in its current form.
The Administration takes seriously the ongoing drought that
has affected communities, producers and water users across
much of the country, including the especially hard hit State
of California. Since the President's visit to Fresno,
California earlier this year the Administration has
undertaken a number of steps to help those most affected by
drought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has directed
millions of dollars in food, conservation and emergency water
assistance to tens of thousands of residents in areas hardest
hit by drought. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided cost-
share assistance for nine water reclamation and reuse
projects in the State as well as millions of dollars in
grants to build long-term resiliency to drought.
Moreover, the President has directed Federal agencies to
work with state and local officials in real-time to maximize
limited water supplies, prioritize public health and safety,
meet state water quality requirements, and ensure a balanced
approach to providing for the water needs of people,
agriculture, businesses, power, imperiled species and the
environment. Among other things, these efforts took form in a
2014 Drought Operations Plan, prepared in close coordination
with the State, and the Administration is already taking
steps to prepare a new drought plan for 2015 based on lessons
learned and the best available science during the current
year.
H.R. 5781 was introduced on December 2 and is being
considered in the few remaining days of this session without
a hearing or opportunity for the public to review and provide
comment. In particular, the bill appears to include a number
of potentially conflicting mandates which can create
confusion and undermine environmental laws, making it ripe
for future litigation. Given the complexity of California
water issues, policy determinations over the use of scarce
water resources should be developed in an open and
transparent manner, with an ability for the public, affected
stakeholders, and Federal, state and local officials to
review and provide comment and feedback. The Administration
stands ready to work with Congress in this regard.
For these reasons, if the President were presented with
H.R. 5781, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from northern California (Mr. George Miller).
May I add that I am very thankful for his many years of service to this House and to the Nation, especially the State of California on water issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the impassioned speech, but it is not our water. It is California water.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that is remaining on both sides?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and I read this information in the newspaper. Nobody ever contacted me. I had no idea the formulation of this particular bill was going on.
When we talk about unemployment, it is nice to trot out pictures and show what the effect is, but I see nothing in this bill that is going to help the farm workers themselves, nothing that is going to provide more wet water, create water, whether it is through recycling, desalination, or conservation--all the things that southern California has been doing.
Let's not forget that 80 percent of the water used is for agriculture and 20 percent is for industrial, commercial, and residential; so there is a little bit of a disparity there, my friends.
I really am looking at how we move towards working on a bipartisan basis. We don't want to argue. We want to make resolutions by working together, and that is not happening. Maybe it is something that I have said--I am not sure, Mr. Speaker--but I am more than willing to sit down between now and next year when we have this bill come to the light of the day, if it is reintroduced, and we can have an honest discussion about the effects it has.
Also, when we talk about California's 35 million residents, only 12 million reside in L.A. County, part of the county that I represent. That is not including San Bernardino, Riverside, or San Diego, so we talk about the boaters in southern California getting the shaft for not getting the water and paying more for that water.
When we are looking at water distribution, I suggest that we sit and actually work openly and transparently. We oppose this secretly written Central Valley-focused legislation. We hope that we are going to continue the dialogue because, yes, California, is a donor State. We need to be able to continue providing that for the rest of the Nation, so that we can have a better economy and a growth in our agricultural area.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5781, the so-called California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, which should be called the CVP California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, and I yield back the balance of my time.