Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to address title VII of the Water Rights Protection Act in this bill. Over many decades, Federal attempts to manipulate Federal permit, lease, and land management process to circumvent long-established…
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to address title VII of the Water Rights Protection Act in this bill.
Over many decades, Federal attempts to manipulate Federal permit, lease, and land management process to circumvent long-established State water law and hijack privately held water rights have sounded the alarm for all non-Federal water users that rely on these water rights for their livelihood.
The Federal Government's overreach and infringement on private property rights that led to the introduction of this original bill in the 113th Congress involved the U.S. Forest Service's attempt to require the transfer of privately held water rights to the Federal Government as a permit condition on National Forest System lands. With this permit condition, there is no compensation for the transfer of these privately held rights.
This Forest Service permit condition has already hurt a number of stakeholders in my home State of Colorado, including Powderhorn Ski Area in Grand Junction and the Breckenridge Ski Resort. The same nefarious tactic has been used in Utah, Nevada, and other Western States, where agencies have required the surrender of possession of water rights in exchange for approving the conditional use of grazing allotments. This Federal water grab has broad implications that have begun to extend beyond the recreation and the farming and ranching community and are now threatening municipalities and other businesses.
In 2014, the Forest Service proposed a groundwater directive that would have expanded the agency's reach over groundwater and established new bureaucratic hurdles to interfere with private water users' ability to be able to access their water. Though the Forest Service ultimately withdrew this controversial groundwater directive, there are no guarantees that the directive or something similar won't be back in the future.
The Water Rights Protection Act offers a sensible approach that preserves water rights and the ability to be able to develop water requisite to living in the arid West without interfering with water allocations for non-Federal parties or allocations that protect an environment that is cherished by all Westerners.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from other Western States to ensure that no State-recognized water right goes unprotected from the class of actions that this bill prohibits.
I appreciate the inclusion of this legislation and encourage its passage.
Mr. Chair, to speak to the nature of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from New Mexico noted, Wayne Aspinall of Colorado stated: ``When you touch water in the West, you touch everything.''
We have that shared concern that that water is going to be preserved. In the West, water is a private property right. We have State law. We have priority-based systems, which have always been recognized by the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, we have seen and reflected in this portion of the legislation that we are discussing today, the Federal Government reaching out to be able to require conditional use of permit water rights to be signed over to the Federal Government. At issue is the amendment that we are discussing right now.
When we talk about our Native American Tribes, my colleague and I have shared in common interest, along with our colleague, Mrs. Torres, in terms of making sure that Native American rights are protected from taking by the Federal Government, as well.
There is good news in the underlying bill. The Department of the Interior had made the statement that their ability to be able to negotiate or enter into water settlements with Tribes is in no way affected or restricted by this bill. It is in no way affected or restricted by this bill, according to the Department of the Interior.
While I have no objections to the changes proposed in the savings clause to be able to clarify as much, I did want to be able to register concern on the amendment that it may not have been as definitive as I would like to have seen in regard to specifying Native American water rights.
I think that is common ground that we are seeing on both sides of the aisle: to make sure that those private property rights are protected.
I will not vote against this amendment, and I applaud my colleagues working together with us to be able to try and achieve an actual amiable solution on something that, as Westerners, we understand probably better than anyone else in the country the importance of water--water for our communities, water for the opportunity for our communities to be able to grow and to prosper.
On this particular issue, a very important segment of that very community is the valuable contributions that our Native American Tribes make to all of our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the overall legislation. In terms of their work on this, I commend all Members.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.