On the Rule for HR 1837 - House Floor Debate Remarks
On the Rule for HR 1837
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
February 29, 2012
Mr. Speaker:
In 2009 and 2010, hundreds of billions of gallons of contracted water were diverted away from California farms and instead dumped into the Pacific Ocean in the name of the Delta Smelt.
This tragic policy fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the most fertile and productive farmland in America. It threw thousands of hard-working families into unemployment. It devastated communities throughout the region. And it created the spectacle of unemployed farm workers standing in food lines to receive carrots imported from China -- in a region that just a short time before had produced much of American grown fruits and vegetables.
And it contributed to rising grocery prices that families felt far beyond the Congressionally-created dustbowl of California’s Central Valley.
In the last Congress, the then-minority Republicans begged and pleaded for hearings to address this catastrophe, but to no avail.
Last year, we returned as the new House Majority to take testimony on what could be done to correct this disaster. The result is the bill by Mr. Nunes that this rule brings to the floor.
This bill restores the water allocations established under the Bay Delta Accord in 1994. When that agreement was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all parties that – quote – “a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there is a need for additional water it will come at the expense of the federal government.” The water diversions shattered that promise. This bill redeems it.
The Federal Central Valley Project is part of a coordinated operating agreement with the State Water Project at California’s request and consent. The two are inseparable and in order to protect the water rights of every Californian, this bill brings the full force of federal law to protect those rights so that there is no ambiguity. This protection has earned this measure the support of the Northern California Water Association, representing the senior water rights holders.
Opponents say, “this pre-empts state water rights.” It doesn’t pre-empt state water rights – it specifically invokes and protects state water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy – local, state or federal – a legitimate Constitutional function of the federal government established under the 14th Amendment and made essential by the terms of the state-approved joint operating agreement of these inter-twined water systems.
The bill also restores common sense and practicality to protections for endangered native species like Salmon and Delta Smelt. One of the greatest threats to these endangered native species is non-native invasive predators like the striped bass. Indeed, it is common to find striped bass in the Sacramento Delta gorged with endangered salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these predators. And it encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure the perpetuation of thriving native populations of salmon and smelt.
It replaces the cost-prohibitive provisions of the San Joaquin River Settlement Act which contemplates spending an estimated $1 billion to achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon below the Friant Dam – that comes to $2 million per fish. This bill replaces the absurd mandate of a year-round cold-water fishery on the hot valley floor with a warm-water fishery that actually acts in concert with the habitat.
It removes disincentives in current law that discourage ground-water banking in wet years. It allows the re-cycling of environmental flows by communities once they have achieved their environmental purpose.
The movement for stronger environmental protections began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources. But like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of commonsense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder.
This bill replaces the cost-prohibitive and unachievable dictates that caused so much human suffering in California with workable, affordable and realistic measures based on real science and not on what one federal judge rightly called the “ideological zealotry” of rogue bureaucrats.
This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when common sense can be restored to our public policy and a sensible balance restored between environmental and human needs.
I welcome that debate, and ask for adoption of the rule to bring it forth.
# # #