H.R. 934 Merced Wild and Scenic River Boundary Adjustment Legislation
April 24, 2013
HR 934 was voted on, and approved, by the House Natural Resources Committee on April 24, 2013. Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statment at the hearing:
HR 934
Markup Statement
April 24, 2013
Mr. Chairman:
HR 934 simply conforms the Merced River’s Wild and Scenic River boundary with the pre-existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric boundary for Lake McClure – which should have been done when the original designation was made.
The boundary change would enable the district to study the possibility of increasing the New Exchequer Dam’s spillway by ten feet, making it possible to temporarily store about 70,000 acre feet of additional water – enough to support 800 agricultural jobs or meet the needs of 70,000 households, AND to generate enough electricity for 1,700 homes.
The small portion of the Merced River affected by this project – about 1,800 feet – that’s 1,800 feet out of 122 miles of designated river – already floods during high run-offs; the spillway adjustment would simply prolong the inundation by between two and eight weeks in very wet years.
If the dam is modified, it will still have to undergo extensive environmental and engineering review and meet all environmental laws – but there is no point to incurring these costs if the current boundary would prevent it from proceeding. Hence, this bill, which passed the House in the 112th Congress but was not taken up by the Senate.
Opponents raise a number of points. The overriding issue, they say, is that this would be the first time a Wild and Scenic River boundary has ever been adjusted.
They have taken the absolutist position that never, ever, ever should a single inch of Wild and Scenic designation be given back. I think that if Congress knew that such boundaries could never be adjusted, even to correct mistakes -- or respond to changing conditions -- or to meet critical public needs -- there would be a lot fewer Wild and Scenic River designations.
The second objection is that the project would inundate an additional 1,800 feet of river and threaten endangered species like the Limestone Salamander.
But as I pointed out, this section already floods during heavy run-offs. More to the point, all state and federal environmental laws would still be in full force – including NEPA, CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act – and these issues would have to be addressed in that process.
The third objection is that increasing the spillway presents engineering issues. Once again, all of this would be addressed during the engineering process.
California has not built a major new water storage project since 1979, when the state’s population was just two thirds of what it is today. As water and electricity supplies become tighter and more expensive and as unemployment continues to stalk our communities, the necessity of this project should become increasingly clear and compelling – even to the most hard-hearted environmentalists.
This bill simply does what should have been done when the designation was made in 1992: conform the Wild and Scenic River boundary to the pre-existing FERC boundary. That’s all this bill does. And by adjusting the boundary, it begins a study that could lead to an increased supply of clean electricity and water, additional groundwater recharge, additional jobs and all the spin-off benefits at no cost to taxpayers – for communities that are now being crushed by some of the highest unemployment rates, highest electricity prices, and most preventable water shortages in the country.
# # #