Recently in Natural Resources Committee

Opening Statement
Forests and Water Joint Hearing
Montrose, Colorado


May 14, 2012

   
Today’s hearing has a ponderous title but it is a national policy imperative:  “Eliminating Federal Red Tape and Excessive Litigation” is indeed the only path to “Create Healthy Forests, Jobs and Abundant Water and Power Supplies.”

I want to thank Congressman Scott Tipton for his leadership on these issues and for pressing to have this field hearing conducted here in Montrose, a community that bears the wounds of the “Greens Gone Wild” policies of recent years.

An old forester in my district summed up the problem we are here to assess when he said, “The excess timber is going to come out of the forest one way or another.  Either it will be carried out or it will be burned out.  But it will come out.”

A generation ago, we carried it out and the result was a thriving economy and a healthy forest.  But then a radical and retrograde ideology was introduced into our public policy transforming sound forest management practices into what can only be described as benign neglect. 

The result is now clear and undeniable: economically devastated communities, closed timber mills, unemployed families, overgrown forests, overdrawn watersheds, jeopardized transmission lines, rampant disease and pestilence and increasingly intense and frequent forest fires.

That is the story of Montrose, Colorado and Saratoga, Wyoming, of Quincy and Camino and Sonora (little towns in my district in California’s Sierra-Nevada) – once thriving and prosperous communities that have been devastated by these policies. 

 When the mills in my district closed in 2009 the owner made it very clear that although the economic downturn was a catalyst, the underlying cause was the fact that 2/3 of the timber they depended upon was held up by environmental litigation.

Despite the recession, they still had enough business to keep the mills open -- and to keep these families employed -- if the environmental Left had not cut off the timber, those mills depended upon.

This is not environmentalism.  True environmentalists recognize the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and recognize the role of sound, sustainable forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests. 

No picture I’ve seen paints a more vivid case for returning to these sound and proven forest management practices than an aerial photo of the Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado a few years ago that is often called the “Red Hand of Death.”  The areas of that forest consigned to benign neglect forms a dead-zone that looks like a “Red Hand.” Overgrown and unmanaged, bark beetles found it easy pickings.  That’s what the so-called environmental movement has done to our forests.

It is surrounded by green, thriving, healthy forest in which excess timber was properly harvested and the remaining trees had enough room to grow strong enough to resist the infestation around it.
 
We’re told that there isn’t enough money for forest thinning, and yet we used to have no problems keeping our forests thinned and healthy when we sold commercially viable timber.  The problem is that if they take place at all, timber harvests are restricted to small diameter trees.  Can you imagine a fishery or wildlife policy limited to taking only the small, juvenile of the species? 

Meanwhile, we know that of $53 million of so-called “stimulus funds” allocated to the Forest Service in Colorado, only $16 million was allocated to address the bark beetle infestation, while the remainder went to such dubious projects as a “bird tour road” and solar panels.

Fortunately, from what I have seen, the American public has awakened to the ramification of these policies and has had a belly-full of them – and it is in the process of replacing the politicians responsible for them.  I believe we are on the verge of a new era when proven practices and common sense will replace the ideological extremism that has dominated our forest policy for the past generation.

I am particularly interested today in suggestions of what needs to be done legislatively and administratively to unravel the paralyzing tangle of litigation, over-regulation, and endless deliberation that have misguided our federal agencies so far from their public trust.

I again want to thank Scott Tipton for his indefatigable leadership on this issue, and Rob Bishop, chairman of the sub-committee with direct oversight over our forests for his efforts over many years to combat and correct these policies.  I think that because of his steady leadership we are now on the verge of being able to change those policies and produce a new era of healthy and thriving forests as well as prosperous and secure forest communities.

# # #

Congressman Tom McClintock, opening statement delivered at the Joint Subcommittee Oversight Field Hearing on "Logs in the Road: Eliminating Federal Red Tape and Excessive Litigation to Create Healthy Forests, Jobs and Abundant Water and Power Supplies"  held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in Montrose, Colorado.  Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.




 

HR 2442 (Miller) Water Recycling

 

M. Speaker:

 Those who blame the drought for the tragedy unfolding in California’s Central Valley ignore the fact that this is a very mild drought by historical standards and that in far worse droughts in the past, far more water was delivered to the Central Valley.  I wonder if the proponents seriously deny that 200 billion gallons of water have been diverted to meet various environmental regulations.

It is morally unconscionable that water recycling bills to benefit the pampered and privileged communities of San Francisco can sail through the House, while 40,000 families have lost their jobs in the San Joaquin Valley because this government has diverted 200 billion gallons of water in order to indulge one of the environmental Left’s pet causes, the Delta Smelt. 

But I want to address the basic economics of these programs. 

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

That clean, cheap and abundant water also made America the bread basket of the world – and the Central Valley the bread basket of California.

 But the majority party has abandoned this policy, and has replaced it with a very different philosophy: that the government’s principal focus should not be to produce abundant water, but rather to ration and recycle shortages that government has caused by abandoning abundance as its primary objective.

 The result is increasingly expensive water that now affects our prosperity as a nation.  By its own admission, this Administration is no longer analyzing the costs and benefits of the projects in the bill now before us.  In committee, the administration admitted that it faces a $600 million backlog of 53 water recycling projects like these and still hasn’t even bothered to prioritize them – let alone figure out how to pay for them.

This bill provides a 25 percent federal match for six local water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay area, and increases the maximum federal cost share for two others.

The total cost to American taxpayers is $38 million in order to produce 2.6 billion gallons, according to the sponsor, or 8,000 acre feet.   

Let’s do the math here.  $38 million for 8,000 acre feet of water.  That comes to $4,500 per acre foot – and that’s just the federal share.  The total cost is four times that amount, or $18,000 per acre foot.

Let’s compare that to the capital cost of the nearby Oroville Dam.  That was roughly $600 million in 1968 – or $3.5 billion in today’s dollars.  That dam produces 3 ½ million acre feet of water.  In other words, the modern day inflation adjusted cost of the Oroville Dam – including its massive power plant -- comes to $1,000 per acre foot.  The projects in this bill cost $18,000 per acre foot, including a $4,500 per acre foot cost to the national treasury, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is empty.

I raised these issues in committee, but didn’t actively oppose this bill because the House has yet to set standards for recycling measures like this one. 

But I must also concur with Ranking Member Hastings, Congressman Nunes and others that it is a travesty that we should vote for 2 ½ billion more gallons of water for San Francisco while taking away 200 billion gallons of water from the Central Valley of California.

At the same time that Central Valley taxpayers are struggling with up to 40 percent unemployment rates, at the same time that all taxpayers are paying higher grocery bills as a result of these unconscionable water diversions, those same taxpayers are being asked to pay a super-premium subsidy to Bay Area water users whose representatives have endorsed this folly. 

And to add insult to injury, Mr. Nunes is not even allowed to offer amendments to restore water deliveries that would mean jobs for 40,000 unemployed Californians without costing the treasury a dime. 

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 

Not only can we do much better – we could not possibly do any worse.

  
 

Tele-townhall banner 

Pledge to America 

Search

Connect with Tom

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • News Feed

Upcoming Events

Satellite Office Hours
 
Office staff members are available to assist constituents with problems or concerns at satellite office locations held throughout the district.  Anyone wishing to discuss an issue of federal concern is invited to attend one of these satellite office sessions and speak with a member of staff.  For more information, or to reach staff anytime, please call the district office at 916-786-5560.
 
May Satellite Office Hours:

El Dorado County

South Lake Tahoe (Weather Permitting)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
12:00 noon to 2:00 pm
(Contact District Office at 916-786-5560 to confirm location)
 
El Dorado Hills
Thursday, May 3, 2012
9:00 am to 11:00 am
California Welcome Center
2085 Vine Street, Suite 105
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
 
Placerville
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
El Dorado County Government Center, 330 Fair Lane,
Placerville, CA 95667
 
Nevada County

Nevada City
Monday, May 14, 2012
9:00 am to 12:00 noon
Eric W. Rood Administrative Center, County Executive Office (2nd Floor), 950 Maidu Ave.

Nevada City, CA 95959
Grass Valley
Monday, May 21, 2012
9:00 am to 12:00 noon
City Hall, Mayor's Conference Room, 125 East Main St.
Grass Valley, CA 95945
 
Truckee
Thursday, May 31, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
Truckee Town Hall (Second Floor Conference Room)
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
 
Placer County

Tahoe City (Weather Permitting)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
9:00 am to 11:00 am
Tahoe City Community Center
380 North Lake Blvd.
Tahoe City, CA 96145

Auburn
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
Placer County Government Center, CEO 3 Meeting Room
175 Fulweiler Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603

Lincoln
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Lincoln City Hall, 600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648

Rocklin
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
City Hall Conference Room
3980 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677