Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I along with Rep. Linda T. Saanchez rise to honor the life of Armando J. Mora, Jr., a Santa Fe Springs City fireman who died of service related cancer on June 18th, 2014.

Mr. Mora was raised in Santa Fe Springs and was proud to serve in the Fire Department of the city he loved. Mr. Mora came from a very distinguished family who have committed their lives to public service in Santa Fe Springs. His father Armando Mora Sr. served on the City Council and was Mayor, and his brother Robert also serves in the Fire Department and is President of Local 3507 of the firefighter's union.

Armando J. Mora, Jr. began his career in the fire service of the City of West Covina and was hired by the Santa Fe Springs Fire Department on January 20, 1981. He served with distinction for 33 years as a firefighter, and was known as an extraordinary man of great character and generosity to all in our community. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Mora because he knew the danger he faced every day on the job, but would not be deterred from his duties in protecting the people of our region.

We extend our sincere sympathy to Mr. Mora's mother Alicia Mora, his loving and devoted wife Georgina Mora, his two children, Lauren and Anthony, stepson Jesse, two sisters Annie and Irene, his brother Robert, and to the extended Mora family and friends, including his brave brothers and sisters in the

Santa Fe Springs Fire Department. We are all devastated by the loss of one so loved. We ask that our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives join us to honor this fallen hero who has made the ultimate sacrifice for our community.

Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 25, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 357 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on Representative Peter DeFazio (OR) Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 358 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 6--Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 359 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 6--Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 350 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Pallone of New Jersey Amendment that ensures that the complete length of cross-border projects would be subject to full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 351 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Waxman of California Amendment that excludes any project with a pending Presidential permit application from using the new approval requirements in the bill.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch

Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2014, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 352 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Welch/Pingree/ Kuster/Shea-Porter Amendment that ensures that major pipeline modifications receive a thorough environmental review.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote #353 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 3301-- North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 354 due to a medical emergency in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Will the gentleman yield?

I rise to address this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I thank my cochairman, Mr. McKinley, on the National Guard ChalleNGe Program.

Thank you for your great help in the outreach to all of our Members of Congress.

We have been working in a bipartisan manner to help our Nation's throwaway children, those who have fallen through the cracks.

For 2015, Defense Appropriations will fund the program at $114 million. The current funding is $135 million, so it would be short.

This amendment increases by, as he mentioned, $21 million to have the same funding as 2014, increasing it to the same level of $135 million. It would prevent cuts to critical programs that are helping our youth integrate back into society. It reduces the budget line in operation and maintenance by the same amount.

It is critical for hundreds of our young people who drop out yearly to have an opportunity to be accepted into the program. The ChalleNGe Program has already educated 120,000 young people nationally. It also is a volunteer program free for 16- to 18-year-olds at no cost to the child or the family; 22\1/2\-week residential boot camp-like program led by the State's National Guard cadre; prepares them, educates them, instills discipline, builds employment potential, and returns them to school.

The 2012 RAND Corporation study finds that for every dollar spent, in return is $2.66, a yield of 166 percent return on investment--the best youth program in the Nation.

It effectively addresses part of our Nation's dropout epidemic on a very small level. America needs more of these programs, not less.

It is beneficial to our local businesses, to our communities, and to our Nation's ability to compete, to our future economy.

According to the 2009 National Labor Market study, California alone has 714,000 dropouts yearly, the sixth-worst State.

Our graduates are 800 a year. Basically, we need more funding to expand it to more qualified individuals who are on a waiting list. Our best retention rate is in California. It is educating, training, and retaining more than 90 percent.

There is very much a need for these programs. Please support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 10th, 2014, I mistakenly voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 277. I meant to vote ``aye'' on the Nadler Amendment to H.R. 4745 to increase funding for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program (HOPWA) by $29.1 million. HOPWA is a program that I have supported throughout my tenure in Congress. HOPWA provides much needed housing assistance to low-income persons with HIV/AIDS in my Congressional District and throughout the Country. I will continue to work with my colleagues as this bill moves through the Senate and onto the Conference process to advocate for increased funding for HOPWA.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of WRRDA and sincerely thank Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs and Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop and all the staff--let's not forget them--for the great bipartisan work.

We thank them for including quality provisions that are important to the Nation, especially to my district, home to Santa Fe Dam and adjacent to Whittier Narrows Dam, the two largest Corps reservoirs in L.A. county.

Generally, it also improves water supply and water capture at the dam. It changes levee vegetation policy not previously taken into account, local characteristics, habitats, or safety. It allows local funding of Corps projects to benefit the region. It improves invasive species management. It prioritizes Harbor Maintenance donor regions, allowing expanded use of funding, which is something I had fought for for many years.

I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in clarifying that section 3013 of WRRDA will require the corps to perform a new review and revision of levee vegetation policy engineering technical letters.

Thanks to Transportation and Infrastructure for their leadership, and please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify the intent of Section 3013 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Conference Report regarding Vegetation Management policy. In 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers issued new levee vegetation policy through Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-571. Most states and local flood control districts, including the State of California Department of Water Resources and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, strongly disagreed with this policy as not taking into account local characteristics and good science.

The 2009 ETL directed states and local agencies to remove all vegetation from their flood control levees. Our local engineers in California and Los Angeles believe this change could be damaging in the following ways:

1. It will lead to weaker levee systems since the roots of vegetation hold the levee material together.

2. It will displace the habitat for endangered and fragile species that use the vegetation.

3. It does not take into account the local geology and characteristics of our levees.

4. It will create massive costs on our flood control agencies that should be using those funds for urgent flood control projects.

Section 3013 of WRRDA will solve this problem by requiring the Secretary of the Army to reissue these regulations regarding vegetation on levees and incorporate regional characteristics, habitat for species of concern, and levee performance.

A minor issue has come to light in recent days since the Conference Report was filed

because Section 3013 requires the Corps to re-issue levee vegetation policy based off of the 2009 ETL 1110-2-571. That 2009 ETL 1110-2-571 was set to expire soon, so the Corps reissued a new Engineering Technical Letter ETL 1110-2-583 that addresses the same levee vegetation policy in the last few weeks. The new ETL is very similar to the 2009 ETL and does not make the changes required by Section 3013 of

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for allowing me to ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that reduces our deficit by $900 billion. This is an American values reform bill.

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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, 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Patricia Mulroy on her retirement after twenty-five years of tireless work for Nevada and the Colorado River as General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA).

For over a quarter century, Pat Mulroy has been a dedicated partner in protecting and preserving the Colorado River Basin for varying interests. She is a determined advocate for the water needs of what once was a sleepy railroad town called Las Vegas. This was no easy task; she represented the driest state in the Nation with the smallest allocation from the River. Yet Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, grew from 900,000 in the early 1990's to 2.7 million during her tenure at SNWA. Under Mulroy's leadership, this community embraces water conservation as their primary means of finding ``new'' water.

It has been said that the ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where he or she stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he or she stands at times of challenge and controversy. Despite the challenges, she has been involved in almost every major water policy development on the Colorado River since the 1980's, including the historic 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages. But perhaps, her closing act may be the most important of them all. In December 2013, Pat helped negotiate Minute 319 to the 1944 Treaty with Mexico--a momentous binational agreement to guide future management of the Colorado River through 2017.

The Colorado River Basin is better today thanks to the work of Pat Mulroy. As she

leaves SNWA to take on new challenges, I want to express my deep appreciation for her contributions to the Colorado River Basin, for her dedication to her community, and for inspiring a new generation of women leaders in water.

My best wishes to Pat, and continued success on behalf of the people in the Colorado River Basin. I ask that all of my colleagues join me to honor Pat for her years of public service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would invite my colleague to visit southern California to check with the rest of California on how we are handling the drought.

Ninety-eight percent of California, as shown by this map, is in drought. We are entering the third year of drought, the driest on record in California.

This bill, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act, targets California's Central Valley only and was introduced 1 week ago with no hearing, no markup, no conversation, nothing, a partisan bill, introduced only by California Republicans, with no meaningful conversation or cooperation with the rest of the California Members, who are all facing similar drought impacts. It is similar to H.R. 1837 from 2011 in the last Congress, and it died in the Senate, as was pointed out.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, the snowpack in the Sierras, the largest reservoir in the Central Valley Project System, was 6 percent of normal. Last week, the National Drought Monitor found that 98 percent of the State is experiencing moderate to severe drought--so dry in California that in the first 18 days of January, the State saw 289 fires that burned 721 acres, including the Colby fire partly in my district.

The State has hired nearly 100 more firefighters and used a super water scooper airplane, at a time when California should be experiencing its wettest month.

California Natural Resources Secretary Laird said it best in a letter: ``This bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water simply does not exist.''

This legislation, instead, reallocates water in a way that erroneously elevates junior water rights uses above all other water needs, including municipal, fisheries and environmental uses.

It repeals existing State law for water use in California, establishing a very harmful precedent for other States. It repeals sections 104, 107, 108, 110, 204, and 401 that explicitly waive State law or reclamation law. It repeals historic California water rights and decades of carefully balanced water compromises. It undermines California and other States' abilities to manage its own resources. It overturns nearly 20 years of environmental and conservation protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, and ignores the best available science demonstrating the negative effects on species. We are, in fact, a species too, the human species.

It repeals the Federal and State agreement on the court-ordered San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. It prohibits Federal or State governments from exercising valid water rights in order to conserve, enhance, recover, or otherwise protect any species that is affected by operations of the CVP or State Water Project. It also reallocates water for junior water rights holders in the Central Valley and ignores the needs of southern California and other water users while privatizing a public resource for a select few.

It does not--I repeat--does not create any new water to solve the drought. It completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the environment and allowing water deliveries. It eliminates that coequal code. It puts jobs at risk, not only for fishermen but also the economy. It would revert contract renewal terms to 40 years instead of the current 25.

Mr. Chairman, the severity of this legislation benefits a very small group. It does not benefit all of drought-impacted California. It needs the cooperation of a bipartisan solution for all of the State, including southern California.

Water bonds in the past have favored northern California. The levee funding favored the Bay Delta, and H.R. 3964 favors Central Valley farmers only.

Southern California wants and needs to be included in a dialogue and be part of the solution. We are currently in dialogue with the Senators on a drought bill.

Title XVI, which is recycled water, WaterSMART, Republicans have been stonewalling ideas. They are not allowing bills to be given the courtesy of a hearing in the subcommittee or full committee.

The Bureau of Reclamation is working with WaterSMART project funding of only $27.5 million and water recycling project funding, Title XVI, of $21.5 million, with a backlog of $400 million in congressionally approved projects.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit letters in opposition: from the White House, a statement and a veto threat; from the Governor of California, Governor Brown; from the California Department of Natural Resources Secretary John Laird; from California Attorney General Kamala Harris; and from 34 diverse California environmental groups.

The Western States Water Council indicates their opposition has not changed to the provisions that preempt states' rights. The bill will just create more litigation over water and not solve anything. We need to work on a bipartisan basis on putting that forth. H.R. 3964 is not such an attempt. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3964.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Office of the Governor,

February 3, 2014.

Re Opposition to H.R. 3964.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter DeFazio,

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative DeFazio: California is

currently experiencing the worst water crisis in our modern

history. We are in our third consecutive year of extremely

dry weather, and our most recent snow survey found that the

Sierra snowpack--a source of water supply for 25 million

Californians--is 12 percent of the normal average, the lowest

ever recorded. Since declaring a drought state of emergency

on January 17th, state agencies have been working closely

with federal, local, and municipal agencies and others, to

respond quickly. We have taken unprecedented actions to deal

with the crisis, including allocating zero water deliveries

to water contractors from the State Water Project for the

first time in the project's history. Last week, California

also released a comprehensive plan for future water

management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water

transfers and other actions.

H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into

California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would

override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain

water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests

the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible

given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would

interfere with our ability to respond effectively and

flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old

water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a

collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.

I urge you to oppose H.R. 3964.

Sincerely,

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the committee.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Costa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Thompson.

May I inquire the length of time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Ami Bera.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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

We have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation about what is good and what is not good for my great State of California.

We continue to stress we need to work together. Mr. Bera said that. Mr. Denham says create your own.

Well, I thought this was the House of the people and that we are supposed to be working together. That is why we have such a low ranking in the view of the American public--we continually fight against each other.

We need to sit in dialogue and be able to converse--at least agree on things that are necessary--to be able to help our country back on its feet instead of fighting over what is not necessarily fightable about.

Mr. Hastings, the chairman, talked about the resolutions of past legislation. Like anything else, we don't get information about many of the bills until last minute. I cannot get any hearings on some of my bills, and neither can some of my members get hearings in the subcommittee or the full committee for being able to address some of these issues that have come up on water.

In summary, we have, of course, this bill that repeals historic California water rights; overturns 20 years of environmental and conservation protections; ignores best available science; repeals the court ordered San Joaquin

Restoration Settlement Act; preempts California State law; and creates no new water.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a Statement of Administration Policy:

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the

Emergency Water Delivery Act, because it would not alleviate

the effects of California's current drought and would disrupt

decades of work that supports building consensus, solutions,

and settlements that equitably address some of California's

most complex water challenges. California is experiencing

severe drought conditions and low reservoir storage. The

urgency and seriousness of the situation requires a balanced

approach that promotes water reliability and ecosystem

restoration.

It ends with:

For these reasons, if the President were presented with

H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto

the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very dangerous precedent for not only my State of California but for the rest of the Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3964 is very, very simple. It is an inconvenient

truth, however, that it creates a revenue stream to the Treasury by eliminating an irrigation subsidy which requires irrigators to pay project debt with interest--in other words, ending free taxpayer subsidy since 1902, which has been in place since reclamation was created. It requires that any new water contracts or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and repay the debt of the project to only the Treasury with interest. This will be of small assistance to balancing our national debt.

When reclamation was established in 1902, it was meant to deliver water to farms with approximately 160 acres. Subsequent congressional action has changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment contract for these projects. So, in 1982, acreage was increased to 960 acres. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt interest free for irrigators while municipalities, like my constituents--my water people--and power users pay the required appropriate interest. I wish other State water users were as lucky as these folks.

H.R. 3964 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting environment and public good. That is not good. If we are removing the role of the Federal Government, then we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts.

My constituents and anybody else's must fairly and equally repay additional interest on any project, and they have. For over a decade, southern California foresaw needed infrastructure, and many local entities stepped up to the plate and provided some relief. We paid for and constructed new storage facilities, like the Diamond Valley Lake Reservoir, entirely paid for by local groups and without one Federal cent, adding 1 million acres of new storage. This is on top of the investments we have made in title XVI--recycled water, which has only a 25 percent Federal match--which created 680,000 acre-feet in California alone.

Let's end this interest-free subsidy at our taxpayers' expense, at all of America's taxpayers' expense. Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

With regard to a statement that was just made on the Bay Delta, it seems that Secretary Babbitt and the Secretary of Natural Resources were the ones who actually passed the Bay Delta Accord, and 3 years were spent by Mr. Garamendi in trying to implement this.

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

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, we can go on debating the issue, but everybody who takes a loan has to pay interest, and I don't see any reason why since 1902 our irrigators have been singled out for not having to pay that while the power marketing agencies and other water agencies do have to ante up that interest. They do pass it on to the consumer, but the consumer understands why.

We need to be transparent on the issue and be able to let people know really what we are paying for. Yes, we have the lowest priced crops in California, but we must be able to ensure that we let the rest of the Nation know why we need to move forward. The Central Valley Project, the CVP, was $1.78 billion. Only $236 million has been repaid, and $1.45 billion has not been repaid.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that is in order so as to begin trying to help balance our budget. We hope that we will get our colleagues to understand that all of us have to hurt a little bit, and I don't see why this does not have the merit that it should, so I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, U.S. Representatives, Judy Chu and Adam Schiff, to congratulate the City of Hope on the 100th anniversary of their first patient served and to thank Dr. Michael Friedman for his 10 years as Chief Executive Officer.

City of Hope started from humble beginnings in the San Gabriel Valley. Founded by a group of volunteers to treat tuberculosis patients in two large army tents on a 10-acre lot in Duarte, California in 1913, City of Hope has since grown to become a world-class health care facility that includes more than 100 buildings and is still growing.

Today, City of Hope is a leader in medical discovery. As one of 41 comprehensive cancer research centers in the United States, City

of Hope has been credited with developing over 200 patents with 3 of the top-selling cancer drugs on the market being based on discoveries from their laboratories. This institution is also a pioneer in the field of bone marrow transplantation with over 11,000 bone-marrow transplants performed since the institution's creation.

Under the leadership of Dr. Michael Friedman as Chief Executive Officer, City of Hope has entrenched itself as a scientific and medical institution of national renown. Throughout his 10 years as CEO, Dr. Friedman has maintained and expanded one of the largest and most successful cancer research and treatment institutions in the country. On Saturday, January 11th I have the honor of attending a gala on the 100th anniversary of City of Hope's first patient to recognize Dr. Friedman, his successor Ronald W. Stone, and Chairman of City of Hope's Board of Directors Norm Payson.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives Chu, Schiff and I ask all Members to join us in celebrating the centennial anniversary of City Hope's first patient and recognizing Dr. Michael Friedman for his service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3080, and I thank the chairmen and the ranking members on both the committee and subcommittee. I especially thank the chairmen and ranking members for supporting provisions requested that will help the State of California.

Section 131 requires the Army Corps of Engineers to review and report on improving water supply options at Corps dams in arid regions such as California.

Section 135 allows the Corps to use Federal funds to prevent and manage aquatic invasive species on Corps projects, including quagga mussels, shore crab, and foreign algae, not only a major California problem but a problem for many rivers and dams. They are very costly. This section will allow the Corps to assist our local agencies in combating invasive species.

Section 125 requires the Corps to reissue regulations regarding levee vegetation and incorporate regional characteristics and levee performance.

Some of the water agencies are complaining that the Corps may be a little heavyhanded, not looking at good science when requiring removal of trees and bushes from our levees, and it would require the Corps to work with local agencies to solve the problem in a regionally appropriate and scientifically proven way.

Section 106 and 109 provide more flexibility for local agencies to sponsor Corps projects. That means accept funding.

Section 201 allows for expanded use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

We are asking for an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. On page 25, after line 12, it adds a new section. Section 10, the savings clause, would require that there be no adverse impacts on water quantity and water quality in the development of this project.

This year, over half of our Nation is experiencing moderate to severe drought. As of last week, 75 percent of the State of Arizona is in moderate to severe drought.

The lifeblood of any nation, of any country, is water. We must do everything we can to protect this precious resource. The mining activities of Resolution Copper, a joint subsidiary of Australian BHP Billiton and of Anglo Australian Rio Tinto Group, would require an enormous amount of water, estimated to be more than 20,000 to 40,000 acre-feet per year. In fact, the Forest Service testified that understanding the impact of this mine on the water supplies of local communities is still ``outstanding.'' On average, 1 acre-foot of water is enough water for a family of four for a year. Resolution Copper's water could be equivalent to at least 20,000 households' water supply for a year.

They also erroneously suggest that their own water demands could be

solved by the use of Central Arizona Project water, called the CAP. However, as with most of the West, demand often exceeds supply, and the bulk of the Central Arizona Project water is already dedicated and committed to other uses and users in Arizona. This includes for use in future Arizona Indian water rights settlements.

The proposed mining operation would also require significant excavation thousands of feet below the surface. H.R. 687 does not require an environmental review, does not include consideration of mitigation measures to the mining project before the land exchange is completed. And I repeat: it does not require an environmental review, consideration of mitigation measures of the mining project before the land exchange is completed.

The mining company is also not required to submit a plan of operations until 3 years--3 years--after the land exchange is codified. Absent the NEPA process, the impacts to water would not be known prior to the land exchange. Neighboring communities have already seen an impact to their water resources from other mining activities.

Chairman Rambler of the San Carlos Apache tribe testified in March of this year, right here in Washington, D.C., that a neighboring community's water supply had been significantly depleted since Resolution Copper began pumping groundwater to de-water parts of the Magma Mine. H.R. 687's permitting of the mine at Oak Flat brings up similar concerns for the tribe.

We should not be considering this legislation now since we do not know the impacts to water resources for area tribes. At the very least, we should ensure that we do not violate existing laws to protect water quantity and water quality. That is what my amendment does. It protects water quality and water quantity.

My amendment seeks to protect our most precious resource, water. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I might add that the town near the mine, Superior, opposes this bill, and I believe the mayor was recently recalled because he also opposed it.

We have businesses and other entities supporting it. But the residents in the nearby areas, especially tribal areas, are opposed to it for a majority of reasons, which have been brought up before, but also, especially because they are in drought conditions, and they are not assured that their water will be protected or that they will be able to have enough water for their own needs. So I request that this amendment be included.

I include in the Record the current Drought Monitor dated September 24, including the areas which indicate the current drought conditions.

I do not have any further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 126 directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, as well as local and State authorities, to provide for the management of the wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The agreement will increase the cap on the herd size and specify that the privately funded Corolla Wild Horse Fund will cover the cost of managing the herd.

This refuge was established in 1984 to preserve and protect the native coastal barrier ecosystem. The refuge provides habitat for the migrating wild fowl and for the endangered species, such as piping plover and sea turtles.

It is unusual to protect a nonnative species such as these horses in a wildlife refuge. Extra effort and resources are needed to ensure that the herd does not impair the ecosystem for the native animals and plants.

H.R. 126 is an imperfect solution, though a solution, to a very difficult problem. We must continue working with Fish and Wildlife Service and with the local community to achieve balance between the needs of the refuge and these wild horses.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.