Remarks by Representative Tom McClintock, Washington, D.C., February 24, 2010.  

A generation ago, the principal objective of our water and power policy was to create an abundance of both.  It was an era when vast reservoirs and hydro-electric facilities produced a cornucopia of clean and plentiful water and electricity on a scale so vast that many communities didn’t even bother to meter.

 But the last generation seems to have abandoned this objective, and to replace it with a very different philosophy that now dominates public policy: that the principal purpose of government is not to produce abundant water and power, but rather to ration shortages that government has caused by abandoning its abundance as its objective.

 The result is increasingly expensive water and power that is now affecting our prosperity as a nation.  We’re no longer looking at cost-benefit analyses of which projects make economic sense and which do not.  Instead, practicality has been replaced by an entirely new ideological filter: those projects that ration or manage shortage are considered worthy regardless of feasibility or cost – and projects that produce abundance are to be discouraged regardless of their economic benefits or simple common sense.

I’d like to mention five disturbing developments in water policy that I would seek your organization’s leadership to remedy.

The first is the agony of the Central Valley.  One of the great travesties of California Water policy is the willful diversion of 200 billion gallons of water away the San Joaquin Valley -- where communities and farms are desperate -- in order to dump that water into the Pacific Ocean to serve the Environmental Left’s pet cause, the three inch Delta Smelt. 

What good are additional water projects if the water is simply to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean?  At some time this issue is going to have to be addressed.  You can already hear the public snapping shut its checkbook as long as such folly persists.

Second is the wanton destruction of Klamath Dams, agreed to just last week.  I submit to you that at a time when Californians are already paying the highest electricity prices in the Continental United States and at a time when California officials can’t guarantee enough electricity to keep your air conditioner running this summer, the willful destruction of FOUR hydro-electric dams that generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest power our technology can produce – is insane.

155 megawatts is enough to produce electricity for 150,000 average households at a cost of $30 per year.  The replacement power will cost many times that amount.  Not only will ratepayers be required to pay those replacement costs, they will also have to pay a surcharge to pay for the dams’ destruction.

The rest of the cost will be paid for with money from the proposed water bond.  Think about that: a water bond being used to destroy four perfectly good hydro-electric dams.  Do you really think the public is going to go along with such lunacy?

My third concern involves the absurd restrictions on cement production inherent in AB 32 – the so-called Global Warming law.  

If we’re going to build more dams and aqueducts, I think we can all agree that cement is a pretty useful thing to have around. 

The chemical process by which cement is produced requires the generation of about one ton of carbon dioxide for every ton of cement.  But carbon dioxide – the same stuff we all exhale with every breath – has now been classified as a toxic pollutant and will be severely restricted at both the state level through AB 32, and at the federal level through EPA edicts.

What exactly do you think that’s going to do to the price and availability of cement – and therefore the price and feasibility of future water projects?

Here is my fourth concern: the outrageous decision by the State Water Resources Control Board to withdrawal the federal development rights for the Auburn Dam.  If we are to take the position that the Auburn Dam will never be completed – the footing for which was constructed more than three decades ago – then it is clear there will be no new dams of any significance. 

The Auburn Dam promises 2.3 million acre feet of water storage, 800 megawatts of hydroelectricity – again, the cleanest and cheapest electricity it is possible to produce – and 400 year flood protection for the Sacramento Delta.  As long as the Auburn Dam sits uncompleted, promises of any significant new dam construction in the future ring utterly hollow.

Fifth and finally is my concern over the abandonment of sound financing principles for future water projects. 

 It should be painfully obvious to everyone that over the last decade, we have squandered billions of dollars that were supposed to be used for lasting water systems but instead were frittered away on countless local environmental hobbies instead.

In the last ten years, voters have approved six bond measures totaling almost $17 billion that all promised to enhance California’s water supply.

 Compare that to the Burns-Porter Act that financed construction of the entire state water project.  It was a total of $1.75 billion approved in 1960.  That’s the equivalent of $12.3 billion in today’s money.  $12.3 billion.  That’s substantially less than the water bonds we’ve approved during the last ten years and just slightly more than the water bonds ALREADY APPROVED just in the last five years.   It is about the size of the bond pending voter approval.

 The Burns-Porter Act paid for the entire State Water Project.  In the last ten years we’ve approved a significantly LARGER sum of money, promising the public it would solve our water needs.  So where’s this generation’s State Water Project?

 We went wrong by making a series of utterly foolish mistakes.  Let me list four lessons we need to re-learn about responsible borrowing and public works.

 The first lesson is: PROJECT FIRST – THEN FINANCING.  A generation ago, the legislature and governor would first agree on a project, commission the engineering, obtain the bids – and ONLY THEN borrow just what was necessary to finance that project.

You don’t go to a banker and say, “I’d like to buy a nice house or something.  Please lend me lots of money.”  No, you select a house, negotiate a price and THEN obtain a loan.

When we borrow billions of dollars for vague notions like “water” or “parks” or “stem cell research” or “economic recovery,” with no specific projects in mind, we simply create a gigantic grab bag of money for pork projects. 
 
 The second lesson is: DON’T ROB ST. PETERSBURG TO PAY ST. PAUL.  If a project exclusively benefits a local community – it should be exclusively paid for by that local community.  State bonds and federal funds should only be used for projects that benefit the entire state or regions.  And those funds should be repaid by the users. 

 The third lesson is: DON’T ROB OUR CHILDREN.  Whatever is purchased with a 30-year bond ought to be there 30 years from now when our children are still paying off that debt.  And yet the bonds adopted in recent years include billions of dollars for cleanup and conservation projects that will be obsolete long before these bonds are repaid.  Our children are going to have their own pollution to clean up and conservation programs to promote without paying for programs from 30 years ago.

 The fourth lesson is: WHEN A PROJECT BENEFITS A DISTINCT CLASS OF USERS, THE DEBT SHOULD BE PAID BY THOSE USERS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR USE.   Water projects should be repaid by the users of the water and electricity – and, by the way, that principle should extend to government’s use of water as well.  Nearly half of our water supply is now being used to satisfy various environmental mandates imposed by government.  That water should be paid for by government – just like any other user.  That would give policy-makers some rational price-signal to determine if these mandates make any sense.

Overall, unless it’s a self-liquidating general obligation bond like those used in the Burns-Porter Act, there’s no excuse for using a G.O. bond for a water project – it should be a revenue bond repaid by the ACTUAL users of the ACTUAL water and electricity produced by the ACTUAL project. 

It should be painfully obvious that the policies of the last 30 years have failed and failed miserably to meet this generation’s needs – let alone beginning to meet the needs of future generations. 

It is time that we restored a little common sense to our water policy:

We don’t build water projects so that we can dump the water into the ocean.

We can’t create abundance by wantonly destroying our existing infrastructure.

We can’t build water projects without cement.

We won’t build more dams as long as we won’t complete the dams we’ve already started.

We can’t produce projects of the magnitude of the Burns-Porter Act by squandering billions of dollars on open grab-bags for local projects.

We need a sharp and dramatic change from the folly of these policies.  I want to pledge to you everything I can do in my new capacity as ranking member of the Water and Power Sub-Committee, and ask that you – the representatives of California’s Water Agencies to take a leading and visible role in this fight.  After all, if not now, when? And if not you, who?

# # #

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
February 23, 2010

Mr. Speaker:

 It pains me to rise in opposition to the valedictory measure of the gentleman from Hawaii, but I believe this bill strikes at the very foundation of a nation dedicated to equality under law.  Read Full Speech.

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
February 23, 2010

Mr. Speaker:

 It pains me to rise in opposition to the valedictory measure of the gentleman from Hawaii, but I believe this bill strikes at the very foundation of a nation dedicated to equality under law.  It establishes a different set of laws, a different set of rights and a different government for one group of Americans based solely on their race.  

 Two American families, living next door to one another, would be accorded two different sets of rights enforced by two separate sovereignties – all based entirely by accident of birth. 

Ever since Brown v. Board of Education buried the “Separate but equal doctrine” of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that such an arrangement is fundamentally incompatible with the American Constitution. 

Ten years ago, in the case of Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, struck down identical race-based voting qualifications for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The state argued that it could impose race-based voting qualification, based on the precedent of Indian tribes.  The court responded:

“Even were we to take the substantial step of finding authority in Congress, delegated to the state, to treat Hawaiians or native Hawaiians as tribes, Congress may not authorize a state to create a voting scheme of this sort.”

That is EXACTLY what this bill does.
 
This bill establishes a precedent that will allow any distinct group within our nation to demand its own separate organic rights and government.  Were this bill to pass, there would be no grounds to deny any other racial group with historic grievances their own separatist government and exclusive rights. 

Having enacted this law, on what basis do we deny every other demand to tear our country apart?  This is a precedent that does tremendous damage to a multi-racial nation founded upon the principles of e pluribus Unum and equal justice under the law.

 How exactly do we establish two separate governing systems and two separate populations with two separate sets of civil and legal rights within the same territory?  Under whose law are competing claims to be settled? 

 The bill explicitly provides that the Native-Hawaiian government and its official acts cannot be challenged in an American court.    

 And how exactly can Congress cede by statute the very essence of its Constitutional authority, requiring civil and criminal jurisdictions and property rights to be negotiated away to this new governing entity that is defined solely by the race of its members.

 The analogy with American Indian tribes is absurd both historically and legally. 

Historically, American Indian tribes never voted to join the Union, they were conquered by force and extended by treaty certain lands in which they could exercise sovereignty, and they maintained continuous self-government.
   

Whatever the circumstances involved in the revolution of 1893 and the annexation of 1898, they became irrelevant in 1959, when the people of Hawaii voted by a 17-to-one margin – almost 95 percent -- to join the Union and to become an integral and indivisible part of the American nation.

The Admission Act never contemplated the establishment of a separatist government.  The provisions that proponents cite merely provided an option of land for homes and small farms of a very small number of Hawaiians with 50 percent native ancestry.

The Admission Act DID contemplate assuming the full protection of the American Constitution and its prohibition against race-based separatism and race-based rights.

Legally, a tribe exists only when it has a government that has exercised substantial authority over its members from before Western contact continuously until the present and when its members mostly live separate and apart from surrounding populations. The sovereignty of that government is limited to the trust lands of the tribe.  These long-established criteria are entirely inapplicable to American citizens of Hawaiian descent -- 40 percent of whom don’t even live in Hawaii according to the 2000 census.

Mr. Speaker, There is no more effective way to destroy a nation than to divide its people by race and accord them different rights and different government based upon their race. 

Yet that is exactly what this bill does. 

House Chamber, Washington D.C.
February 23, 2010

M. Speaker:

 Two weeks ago, Congress and the President added $1.9 trillion to the national debt limit.  That translates to more than $6,000 of additional debt for every man, woman and child in the country – more than $24,000 for an average family of four.

 Your family is required to repay that debt through future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on your credit card statement.

 $24,000 is the price of a new car.  Only you don’t get the new car – only the payments for the new car.  What you get instead is another 14 months of deficit spending.

 Two thirds of economic growth is consumer-driven, and yet we have just cost every family in America another $24,000 from its future purchasing power. 

 These policies are not helping the economy – they’re hurting it.  The American people are coming to understand this.  Let’s hope it’s in time to change this congress, change this administration, and save this country.
 

House Chamber, Washington D.C.
February 23, 2010

M. Speaker: Two weeks ago, Congress and the President added $1.9 trillion to the national debt limit.  That translates to more than $6,000 of additional debt for every man, woman and child in the country – more than $24,000 for an average family of four.  Read Full Speech.

At a time when Californians are paying the highest electricity prices in the Continental United States and when officials can’t guarantee enough electricity to keep the lights on, the decision to deliberately destroy 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity available is simply insane. 

Congressional Art Competition Guidelines

Student Information & Release Form

All high school students are invited to participate in the Congressional Art Competition, An Artistic Discovery, a nation-wide high school art competition sponsored by the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The contest is open to all high school students within the Fourth Congressional District.

Opening Statement
Congressman Tom McClintock
House Water and Power Sub-Committee
February 4, 2010. 

Last week, Republicans held a listening forum in Fresno to hear directly from the people of California’s Central Valley who have been devastated by the federal government’s willful decision to turn off their water to indulge the environmental left’s pet causes.

I’m sorry this sub-committee chose not to attend.  If my colleagues had attended, they would have heard the rain outside, while inside they would have heard that up to 10,000 extra acre feet of water is being sent out to the ocean PER DAY because of federal environmental regulations.  As Tom Birmingham from the Westlands Water District just said in the Contra Costa Times, “Under the federal rules, the more it rains, the more water we lose.”  This is insanity.

To make matters worse – and a day after our listening session in Fresno – the administration tried to misrepresent the release of ALREADY SCHEDULED water deliveries as some sort of great new relief to the Valley.  This prompted the Fresno Bee – hardly a hotbed of conservative activism – to say that Secretary Salazar (quote) “either doesn’t understand the complicated Western water picture or he thinks Valley residents can be fooled by his pronouncements.”

This is the same Secretary Salazar who admitted to the Natural Resources Committee last year that the government had the authority to turn the pumps back on but that it chose not to do so because (quote) “it would be like admitting failure.”

Absent administration action, we have a bill languishing in the Natural Resources committee that will turn those pumps back on, authored by Mr. Nunes, but the committee obstinately refuses to hear it.  Instead, we have Mr. Costa’s bill to use so-called stimulus funding to build fish screens.  This is now being touted as some great new relief to the Valley. We’re not willing to turn the pumps back on – which costs taxpayers nothing – but we’re more than happy to shovel untold millions of dollars for fish screens and other environmental mitigations.

The approach of the majority party reminds me of something Leo Tolstoy wrote about the Czar’s despotic rule.  He wrote, “I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me, and all the while I assure him and anyone who will listen that I am very sympathetic to his plight and willing to do everything I can to help – except by getting off his back.”

Madam Chairwoman, this is becoming farcical.  The people of the San Joaquin Valley are not asking for taxpayer handouts, they are simply asking Congress to find the political will to act and to act now.  An almond orchard that dies for lack of water isn’t going to produce almonds this year.  But it also isn’t going to produce almonds next year or the year after.  We are now in imminent danger of destroying the agricultural infrastructure of the Central Valley – solely because of the intransigence of this very sub-committee. 

So I say, as plainly as I can – Mr. Salazar, turn on these pumps.  Madam Chairwoman, turn on these pumps.

 The time to act is long overdue.  There is nothing that I can find in this bill that will restore water deliveries to the Central Valley this year. NOTHING.  There is very little in this bill that will directly deliver additional water to the Central Valley ever. 

 Only the pumps can do that.  For the sake of humanity, Madam Chairwoman and my Democratic colleagues, turn on these pumps.