Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, in defense of the economics of water recycling, I need to correct the record. The WateReuse Research Foundation has found that recycling projects tend to be among the cheapest ways to increase water supply. Potable water reuse is generally comparable or less expensive than alternative options. The Congressional Research Service has found that title 16 water recycling projects are comparable in price to alternate water sources-- in some cases, substantially cheaper--and there is vast new potential to develop these water supplies. This is exactly the kind of forward-thinking conversation we ought to have if we are serious about California water.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this amendment as well. The headwaters of our watersheds play a crucial role in ensuring the reliability and the quality of water supplies throughout our State. Our water supply depends not just on artificial reservoirs, but also on natural reservoirs of snowpack and groundwater retention in the forests of these headwater areas. Healthy, vibrant forests provide multiple benefits, including carbon capture and shade to reduce rapid snowmelt. When they are properly protected, forest soils act like sponges to absorb rainfall and slowly release it back into rivers and streams throughout the year. This amendment is one of the many ways that we can ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation is building a 21st century water supply system for California and the West, so I strongly encourage support for it.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly offer my support for my colleague's amendment. This is a commonsense amendment that recognizes the tremendous potential that groundwater storage represents. This is one of the most important tools in our water management toolbox. We know that our future hydrology will be less certain because of climate change. It is going to make droughts across our country more frequent and severe. This amendment will help make sure we are taking the appropriate steps to prepare. So I want to thank my colleague for this forward- thinking amendment, and I support its adoption.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I actually have no problem with my colleague's attempt to make a clarification to this bill. That clarification is needed, I am sure, but it is important to realize that the reason it is needed is because we haven't gone through regular order. We are talking about provisions that have not had the benefit of hearings, of markups, of witness testimony, clarifications that would have been made in the regular order process. The underlying bill, it is important to remember, does enormous damage to California water law. That is why it is opposed by the Governor, by our attorney general, by our two U.S. Senators, and by many members of the California delegation. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I also represent northern California. My friend, Mr. LaMalfa, just said that this bill fully protects northern California's water. Well, we represent the two districts right next to each other that are the northernmost districts in California, and I can tell you, my part of northern California doesn't do so well under this bill. In fact, the only way we have been able to prevent a repeat of a catastrophic fish kill disaster in the Klamath River system each of the last several years has been by releasing cold water in the Trinity River, which is a major tributary to the lower Klamath River. That has been a lifesaver for the communities downstream that depend on those salmon runs. This bill would legislatively prohibit the Bureau of Reclamation from ever doing that again. So this is not a bill that is good for northern California, certainly, my part of northern California. And I think the same goes for the other northern California colleagues that we heard testify in opposition earlier. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the redefinition of ``major water storage projects.'' It is not a definition that I think is recognized anywhere else other than just now on this floor, but I appreciate it. Mr. Chair, there are many problems with this bill, and I do want to urge my colleagues to oppose it. I can't keep track of the number of times the State of California has come up in our debate here these last several minutes. So let's look to the State of California and see what the State of California says about this bill. The Governor of the State of California opposes it in a hard-hitting letter that went out to the California delegation and others just a few days ago. The new attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, wrote an equally critical letter opposing this bill. Both U.S. Senators from California oppose this bill. It is going nowhere in the Senate and will not become law because of fundamental flaws that have been brought up each of the past several years that this bill has been introduced in this Congress. It overrides California State sovereignty and State water laws in ways that are unacceptable to the people of California and to the government of California. So when we keep bringing up California, let's just be very clear that California doesn't want this bill. California opposes this bill. Now, I represent the downstream end of some of these water systems that we are talking about. When we talk about people and fish and jobs, it is important to remember that fishing jobs matter, too. In the communities that I represent, and also communities throughout Oregon and Washington that depend on California salmon runs, they are hurting. This summer we are going to probably see a closure, for all intents and purposes, of the commercial salmon season. We are certainly going to see a closure of the Yurok Tribal Salmon Fishery for the second year in a row. That is not only economically devastating to Tribal communities that I represent, it has an emotional impact as well. These are communities that are hurting. In fact, the Yurok are reporting suicide rates among young people that are alarmingly high. The closure of this sacred fishery that is their grocery store, that is a sacred part of their existence, is certainly not going to help, and I think could very well contribute to the very severe problems that they are experiencing. Fishing jobs matter, the environment matters, downstream communities that depend on this water that would be redistributed and reallocated by Congress through this short-sighted bill, that all matters, too. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this wrong-headed bill, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do what we have been inviting them to do each of the past several years, and that is to reach across the aisle on bipartisan, commonsense water solutions. There is a lot that we could do together. Many of my colleagues served with me in the California State legislature. They know, because we did it together, that there is a different way. There is a better way. We were able to pass landmark, bipartisan water legislation during our time together in Sacramento, and we did it because we didn't try to pick winners and losers. We found all sorts of low-hanging fruit and consensus solutions, and we came up with something that was supported across party lines, and in every region of the State. We can do that here, too, but we won't do it through this bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this debate is causing the fact checking machines to melt down, unfortunately. We just heard that there hasn't been a single major storage project in California since the 1970s. That is going to come as shocking news to the folks of the Metropolitan Water District which completed a huge storage project, Diamond Valley, during that period. It will certainly surprise the folks in Contra Costa, which completed Los Vaqueros without any special environmental shortcuts and with their own financing for the most part. It will surprise local water districts around the State, including my own Marin Municipal Water District, which completed two dam expansion projects in that same timeframe. It will surprise the folks at the current and semitropic groundwater banks that expanded significantly groundwater storage during that timeframe. In fact, the truth is, California has added nearly 6 million acre feet of new storage, surface and groundwater storage, over the past few decades in this timeframe we have been talking about. So facts really do matter. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Responding briefly to a bit of hyperbole just now that somehow environmental laws have created a ``desert that produces nothing in California,'' we do need to remember the facts. The truth is, even through this historic drought, farm employment rose statewide each year during the drought. The agricultural economy is thriving, and, thankfully, this year, even the most junior Federal contractors are enjoying a 100 percent allocation. They are fully realizing the vision of being the breadbasket of this country and the world. It is hardly a desert that produces nothing. With that, I do need to contrast what has been happening on the other end of the system, many of the communities I represent, where fishing communities really do have nothing. The California salmon season this year will be little or nothing. The Yurok Tribe that I represent that is dependent on fisheries, salmon fisheries in California since long before there was agriculture, will, for the second year in a row, close its Tribal fishery. We are seeing folks selling their boats. We are seeing fishing communities impacted in dramatic ways. There is real genuine hardship, much like what was just described by my friend. So the facts do matter. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), my colleague from the Sacramento area.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly respond to my friend's reference to a manmade drought. What California just went through is what hydrologists, scientists, and historians tell us is the most significant drought the State has ever experienced--a natural one. I certainly knew that human activities were impacting the climate, but, wow, if human beings could actually cause the snowpack to be 5 percent of normal and cause a drought like that, that is taking human-induced climate change to a whole new level. We have got to be careful in this debate. We are beginning to give hyperbole a bad name. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), representing the Sacramento Valley.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, our environmental laws are not preventing new dams from being built. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation, the GAO, and the Congressional Research Service have looked at this and haven't been able to identify a single--nor my colleagues across the aisle have been able to identify a single dam project that somehow was blocked because of environmental laws. What has been stopping many of them--not all, but many of them--has been the financing challenge because many of these projects just don't make a lot of sense. It is important to realize that projects that do make sense have moved forward. They have secured financing. They haven't needed special shortcuts from the environmental laws. And they have happened, projects like Diamond Valley, projects like Los Vaqueros, probably the coming expansion of Los Vaqueros. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We often hear about water that flows through the estuary of California's Bay-Delta system, we hear that sometimes described as wasted. There are some inconvenient facts that we have to bring up when that happens, like the fact that almost all of that water that flows out through the estuary is to prevent salt water intrusion so that the State and Federal water pumps aren't sending salty water to millions of Californians. That wouldn't work. In fact, if we shut down all of that outflow that my colleague just mentioned, that is exactly what you would see: massive salt water intrusion and a shutdown of the State and Federal water projects. There is also incredible value in the water that flows through that estuary for downstream communities and farmers and senior water right holders, and others who have depended on it for decades. No one understands that better than my colleague who represents some of those communities in the estuary, in the delta, Mike Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, so much for regular order. The bill before us today has not received a hearing in committee where witnesses could have testified about its effects. It has not gone through the markup process so that the committee of jurisdiction could actually debate and offer amendments to improve it. Moreover, we are about to vote on a bill with several provisions that no one has ever seen before last Wednesday, aside from a small group of Republican offices and special interests that have been working on the bill. Now, this closed-door process not only ignores the changing conditions of drought in California and how the State has already been adapting to meet water conservation needs, but it also ignores all of California's water provisions that were included, albeit at the last minute, in the WIIN Act last year, which is now Federal law. There has been no discussion, no hearing, no way to know how the provisions of this bill that overlap with the enacted law will actually be implemented by the Trump administration. This is legislating blind, and it is a bad idea. On some level, I do understand my Republican colleagues' fear of regular order on this bill. The more sunlight and public scrutiny that this bill gets, the uglier it looks. Make no mistake, if enacted, this bill will hurt a lot of people. This bill takes water away from fishermen, from tribes, the environment, Delta farmers, and others in order to redistribute it primarily to a small group of some of the Nation's biggest and most politically connected agribusiness interests. My Republican colleagues often talk about States' rights, yet this bill repeatedly overrides State laws over the objection of that State. I am talking, of course, about California. A letter of opposition to H.R. 23 recently came from Governor Jerry Brown, sent to the speaker of the house in the California Congressional Delegation attesting to this. Governor Brown writes: ``This bill overrides California water law, ignoring our State's prerogative to oversee our waters. Commandeering our laws for purposes defined in Washington is not right.'' This assault on California law and its values are why both California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Kamala Harris oppose this bill as well. Now, here are just a few examples of the sections in this bill that preempt State law. Section 108(d) begins with the words ``California law is preempted'' on page 21, paragraph 3. That section goes on to remove State protections for certain fisheries. Section 113 of the bill preempts California law that requires the restoration of California's second longest river and that river's native salmon runs. Section 108 of the bill tells the State of California that it is barred from managing the State's water in any way that would ``protect, enhance, or restore . . . any public trust value.'' In other words, the broader public interest can't be considered by the State when it is managing the water that belongs to the people of California. Additionally, this bill eliminates existing fishery protections, which could put many of California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs they support on a path to extinction. That means that this is more than just a California problem, because fishing communities in Oregon and Washington also depend on California salmon runs. There was a recent UC Davis report that found that if present trends continue, many of California's salmon runs are on a path to extinction in the decades ahead. This bill would hasten that prediction into reality. This is not just an environmental impact. It is a human one as well. We have heard from fishermen who are struggling to pay their mortgages, boats are being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes are being repossessed. We have heard about the struggles of small- business owners running restaurants, hotels, and other retail and service businesses. We have also heard from Indian Country, like the Hoopa Valley Tribe that I represent, and others about the danger that this bill poses to tribal fisheries, to tribal water, fishing, property, and other rights. Rather than simply picking winners and losers, as this destructive bill does, Congress should be working together to grow water supplies for everyone without violating Tribal responsibilities or overriding State sovereignty. Congress could be supporting a range of modern water technologies like reuse, desalination, water use efficiency, storm water capture, and groundwater storage and remediation. These are the tools that have increased California's water supplies in recent years and are making our State more drought resilient, but this bill does none of that. These are not controversial suggestions working on these modern water supply tools; in fact, it was the reclamation commissioner for President George W. Bush who described the water that we could tap through reuse as the next great river of the American West. We should be focusing on those kind of noncontroversial consensus solutions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ivan Lee Welty, as he retires from a 45-year career as an engineer and land surveyor on the Mendocino Coast. Born in Hill City, Kansas, in 1942, Mr. Welty received his degree in Civil Engineering from Kansas State University before making his way to Mendocino, California. He distinguished himself quickly by participating in efforts to establish the Class K Housing designation that expanded affordable housing options in rural Mendocino County. In 1975 he started his business, I.L. Welty and Associates, which has provided engineering and design services for more than 40 years. As a business owner, Mr. Welty provided pro bono engineering and design work to numerous nonprofits including the Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens, the Humane Society, the Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center, the Kelley House Museum, and Habitat for Humanity. In addition to donating his time, Mr. Welty paid his staff to assist on many of these projects over the years. Mr. Welty married the love of his life, Sally, in 1974. Together they were active in many environmental and community issues. They helped found the Mendocino Land Trust and reinstitute the historic Mendocino Fourth of July Parade. They were also strong supporters of the Mendocino Whale Wars, in which community members fought the international whaling fleets to end whaling in and around Cape Mendocino. The first Mendocino Whale War Festival, now the Mendocino Coast Whale Festival, swiftly became an annual tradition that continues today. Lee Welty's career is one of dedicated service to his community and the environment. Please join me in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his outstanding contributions to the Mendocino Coast.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Dietrich (Diet) Stroeh, who passed away on May 30, 2017, after a lifetime of public service to his community. Born on October 22, 1936, Mr. Stroeh attended the University of Nevada where he earned a degree in civil engineering before joining the United States Air Force Reserves in 1955. After joining the Marin Municipal Water District as an engineer in 1960, he served a variety of roles in the agency, and became the General Manager in 1974. After twenty years with the agency Mr. Stroeh co-founded an engineering firm in 1980, which eventually became CSW/Struber-Stroeh Engineering group. He successfully ran the firm for 37 years until his passing. Mr. Stroeh's legacy to the community extends from a personal mission to serve the public that was evident throughout his professional life. As the General Manager of the Marin Municipal Water District, his creative leadership was critical for securing Marin County's water supply during the 1976 California Drought. His solutions led to the development of a new in-county water supply, the county's first comprehensive water management plan, and the implementation of conservation education throughout the region. These events led the local press to declare him ``the hero of the drought,'' because he not only ran the agency during this time, but genuinely inspired a community ethic to conserve water as an ongoing practice. Mr. Stroeh had a dual life as a civil engineer by trade and a tireless public servant throughout his tenure on numerous volunteer boards and commissions. His volunteer services include such roles as Director of the North Coast Rail Road Authority, Director of the Bank of Marin, chair of the Novato Economic Development Commission, member of the Bay Area Water Works Association, and president of the Golden Gate Bridge District's Board of Directors, among many others. Mr. Stroeh is survived by his wife Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh and his beloved children: Christina Stroeh, Jody Hunter, Erica Antonio, David Brown and Dona Brown, his seven grandchildren, five nieces and nephews, and four cats. Mr. Speaker, the depth of Mr. Stroeh's service to his community has left a positive legacy across the Bay Area, and he will be dearly missed. When asked about his role on the Golden Gate Bridge District, Mr. Stroeh once reflected that he was ``just a cog in the machine,'' a typically humble comment from a man who dedicated his life to public service. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to him today and honor the memory of leadership that sought service above self.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this amendment. My colleague across the aisle just asked the rhetorical question: Why is this amendment needed? It is needed because fishing jobs matter. The people whom I represent on the north coast of California and also other fishing communities up and down the Pacific Coast, including Oregon and Washington, their jobs matter, and their limited opportunity to have their interests considered when a dam project is moving forward is what is shortened by the streamlining in this bill. Their interests are already subordinated oftentimes, but they get subordinated even further by the streamlining in this case, which places the Bureau of Reclamation, the proponent of the new dam, in charge of the administrative record, which places the fish agencies-- which often advance the interests of protecting fisheries--in a subordinate role to the Bureau of Reclamation that controls the administrative record, which imposes shortened timelines to make it even harder for their interests to be considered. Fishing jobs matter. And the truth is, right now, in my district and in many other fishing communities, people are hurting because they have been damaged by poorly operated and poorly permitted dams. Let's not make things worse. This amendment is absolutely necessary, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, unfortunately, must oppose this amendment. I am not sure if it was the intent of my friend, Mr. LaMalfa, but it appears that this amendment would prioritize permitting surface storage projects under the WIIN Act and not groundwater storage WIIN Act projects. The WIIN Act, of course, authorized money for both surface and groundwater storage projects. These projects are yet to be named and prioritized. That still needs to happen. Yet this amendment applies this bill's streamlining provisions to WIIN's ``State-led projects for new surface water storage projects.'' Now, providing surface storage above all other types of water infrastructure projects certainly is in keeping with some of the obsession with new dams that we have heard from my colleagues across the aisle. But the truth is, there are all sorts of other worthy projects that are needed if we are going to get serious about water infrastructure in California; and to put a thumb on the scale for one particular kind is not the right way to go. So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.