Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, H.R. 3189 turns the status quo on its head in order to provide a certain class of users a new advantage over all other users of our public lands. It strikes me as interesting that I have heard farmers and ranchers mentioned a couple of times, although this, apparently, also affects grazing lands, which I believe farmers and ranchers do use; and unfortunately, I am sure they have not looked at it well enough to understand what really could happen. The status quo is that Federal land managers have to try to balance multiple competing uses of our public/taxpayer lands--recreation, timber, grazing, conservation, energy production, and the list goes on. Under the status quo, one of the tools land managers use to achieve this balance is the ability to condition certain uses of public lands-- taxpayer lands--on an agreement to transfer or limit water rights. If you want the ability to graze or cut timber or build a dam on public lands, you have to agree to leave some water in the river for other uses, like recreation, habitat protection, et cetera. If that authority is taken away, as the bill would do, then certain kinds of users of our public lands get to take all the water they want, leaving everybody else literally hanging high and very dry. The status quo is balanced. H.R. 3189 tips the scale all the way in favor of a certain class of users and turns the status quo into chaos. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I ask how many speakers my colleague from the other side has?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, there is no taking of anybody's water rights in this case and the majority knows it. Claiming this is a taking is misleading and irresponsible. The only way State or private water rights could, I repeat, could be transferred or diminished in any way is if the owner of those rights volunteers to a transfer or a limitation to a portion of those rights as part of a deal to receive the permission to use Federal land. Volunteering to limit your water rights in exchange for the use of Federal land, taxpayer land, is the opposite of taking. The various court cases the majority has thrown around deal with legitimate, I repeat, legitimate water rights issues; cases where there are overlapping or conflicting claims over the same water. This is not that type of a case. I defy my colleagues to produce any case law holding that a decision to give up a water right, voluntarily, in order to get another Federal benefit is a taking. There are no such cases. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, the base bill actually creates all kinds of uncertainty, and allows a ski area owner to sell their water rights. If you are a local business owner in that area who depends on the ski resort business, let's say you own a restaurant or an equipment store or have a hotel, H.R. 3189 means that you have no idea, from one year to the next, whether the resort, which brings people to town, will still be operating if it has water. If the water rights are not tied to the resort in any way, which is what H.R. 3189 wants to ensure, there is no guarantee that the owners won't sell the water, leaving the Forest Service holding a ski resort that cannot operate without that water because the water rights have been previously sold. It is the Forest Service that is trying to create some minimal certainty that the resort would have current water rights to keep running, even if the current owners were to leave. It is H.R. 3189 that is trying to prevent that certainty. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague is right, but then let's hold a hearing on the water rights themselves and bring the impacted and affected parties to the table, so that there is a fair hearing which is open, transparent, and fair, but we haven't done that. We are talking about H.R. 3189, which essentially was set up to deal with the differences between the ski resorts and the Forest Service. Water belongs to the State, and the State gives people the right to use it. It is owned by the people of the United States. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Patricia Mulroy on her retirement after twenty-five years of tireless work for Nevada and the Colorado River as General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). For over a quarter century, Pat Mulroy has been a dedicated partner in protecting and preserving the Colorado River Basin for varying interests. She is a determined advocate for the water needs of what once was a sleepy railroad town called Las Vegas. This was no easy task; she represented the driest state in the Nation with the smallest allocation from the River. Yet Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, grew from 900,000 in the early 1990's to 2.7 million during her tenure at SNWA. Under Mulroy's leadership, this community embraces water conservation as their primary means of finding ``new'' water. It has been said that the ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where he or she stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he or she stands at times of challenge and controversy. Despite the challenges, she has been involved in almost every major water policy development on the Colorado River since the 1980's, including the historic 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages. But perhaps, her closing act may be the most important of them all. In December 2013, Pat helped negotiate Minute 319 to the 1944 Treaty with Mexico--a momentous binational agreement to guide future management of the Colorado River through 2017. The Colorado River Basin is better today thanks to the work of Pat Mulroy. As she leaves SNWA to take on new challenges, I want to express my deep appreciation for her contributions to the Colorado River Basin, for her dedication to her community, and for inspiring a new generation of women leaders in water. My best wishes to Pat, and continued success on behalf of the people in the Colorado River Basin. I ask that all of my colleagues join me to honor Pat for her years of public service.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we can go on debating the issue, but everybody who takes a loan has to pay interest, and I don't see any reason why since 1902 our irrigators have been singled out for not having to pay that while the power marketing agencies and other water agencies do have to ante up that interest. They do pass it on to the consumer, but the consumer understands why. We need to be transparent on the issue and be able to let people know really what we are paying for. Yes, we have the lowest priced crops in California, but we must be able to ensure that we let the rest of the Nation know why we need to move forward. The Central Valley Project, the CVP, was $1.78 billion. Only $236 million has been repaid, and $1.45 billion has not been repaid. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amendment that is in order so as to begin trying to help balance our budget. We hope that we will get our colleagues to understand that all of us have to hurt a little bit, and I don't see why this does not have the merit that it should, so I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, we have heard a lot of conversation about what is good and what is not good for my great State of California. We continue to stress we need to work together. Mr. Bera said that. Mr. Denham says create your own. Well, I thought this was the House of the people and that we are supposed to be working together. That is why we have such a low ranking in the view of the American public--we continually fight against each other. We need to sit in dialogue and be able to converse--at least agree on things that are necessary--to be able to help our country back on its feet instead of fighting over what is not necessarily fightable about. Mr. Hastings, the chairman, talked about the resolutions of past legislation. Like anything else, we don't get information about many of the bills until last minute. I cannot get any hearings on some of my bills, and neither can some of my members get hearings in the subcommittee or the full committee for being able to address some of these issues that have come up on water. In summary, we have, of course, this bill that repeals historic California water rights; overturns 20 years of environmental and conservation protections; ignores best available science; repeals the court ordered San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act; preempts California State law; and creates no new water. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a Statement of Administration Policy: The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3964, the Emergency Water Delivery Act, because it would not alleviate the effects of California's current drought and would disrupt decades of work that supports building consensus, solutions, and settlements that equitably address some of California's most complex water challenges. California is experiencing severe drought conditions and low reservoir storage. The urgency and seriousness of the situation requires a balanced approach that promotes water reliability and ecosystem restoration. It ends with: For these reasons, if the President were presented with H.R. 3964, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very dangerous precedent for not only my State of California but for the rest of the Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3964 is very, very simple. It is an inconvenient truth, however, that it creates a revenue stream to the Treasury by eliminating an irrigation subsidy which requires irrigators to pay project debt with interest--in other words, ending free taxpayer subsidy since 1902, which has been in place since reclamation was created. It requires that any new water contracts or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and repay the debt of the project to only the Treasury with interest. This will be of small assistance to balancing our national debt. When reclamation was established in 1902, it was meant to deliver water to farms with approximately 160 acres. Subsequent congressional action has changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment contract for these projects. So, in 1982, acreage was increased to 960 acres. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt interest free for irrigators while municipalities, like my constituents--my water people--and power users pay the required appropriate interest. I wish other State water users were as lucky as these folks. H.R. 3964 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting environment and public good. That is not good. If we are removing the role of the Federal Government, then we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts. My constituents and anybody else's must fairly and equally repay additional interest on any project, and they have. For over a decade, southern California foresaw needed infrastructure, and many local entities stepped up to the plate and provided some relief. We paid for and constructed new storage facilities, like the Diamond Valley Lake Reservoir, entirely paid for by local groups and without one Federal cent, adding 1 million acres of new storage. This is on top of the investments we have made in title XVI--recycled water, which has only a 25 percent Federal match--which created 680,000 acre-feet in California alone. Let's end this interest-free subsidy at our taxpayers' expense, at all of America's taxpayers' expense. Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. With regard to a statement that was just made on the Bay Delta, it seems that Secretary Babbitt and the Secretary of Natural Resources were the ones who actually passed the Bay Delta Accord, and 3 years were spent by Mr. Garamendi in trying to implement this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Thompson.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire the length of time remaining on both sides, please.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Costa).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would invite my colleague to visit southern California to check with the rest of California on how we are handling the drought. Ninety-eight percent of California, as shown by this map, is in drought. We are entering the third year of drought, the driest on record in California. This bill, H.R. 3964, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act, targets California's Central Valley only and was introduced 1 week ago with no hearing, no markup, no conversation, nothing, a partisan bill, introduced only by California Republicans, with no meaningful conversation or cooperation with the rest of the California Members, who are all facing similar drought impacts. It is similar to H.R. 1837 from 2011 in the last Congress, and it died in the Senate, as was pointed out. According to the California Department of Water Resources, the snowpack in the Sierras, the largest reservoir in the Central Valley Project System, was 6 percent of normal. Last week, the National Drought Monitor found that 98 percent of the State is experiencing moderate to severe drought--so dry in California that in the first 18 days of January, the State saw 289 fires that burned 721 acres, including the Colby fire partly in my district. The State has hired nearly 100 more firefighters and used a super water scooper airplane, at a time when California should be experiencing its wettest month. California Natural Resources Secretary Laird said it best in a letter: ``This bill falsely holds the promise of water relief that cannot be delivered because, in this drought, the water simply does not exist.'' This legislation, instead, reallocates water in a way that erroneously elevates junior water rights uses above all other water needs, including municipal, fisheries and environmental uses. It repeals existing State law for water use in California, establishing a very harmful precedent for other States. It repeals sections 104, 107, 108, 110, 204, and 401 that explicitly waive State law or reclamation law. It repeals historic California water rights and decades of carefully balanced water compromises. It undermines California and other States' abilities to manage its own resources. It overturns nearly 20 years of environmental and conservation protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, and ignores the best available science demonstrating the negative effects on species. We are, in fact, a species too, the human species. It repeals the Federal and State agreement on the court-ordered San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act. It prohibits Federal or State governments from exercising valid water rights in order to conserve, enhance, recover, or otherwise protect any species that is affected by operations of the CVP or State Water Project. It also reallocates water for junior water rights holders in the Central Valley and ignores the needs of southern California and other water users while privatizing a public resource for a select few. It does not--I repeat--does not create any new water to solve the drought. It completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the environment and allowing water deliveries. It eliminates that coequal code. It puts jobs at risk, not only for fishermen but also the economy. It would revert contract renewal terms to 40 years instead of the current 25. Mr. Chairman, the severity of this legislation benefits a very small group. It does not benefit all of drought-impacted California. It needs the cooperation of a bipartisan solution for all of the State, including southern California. Water bonds in the past have favored northern California. The levee funding favored the Bay Delta, and H.R. 3964 favors Central Valley farmers only. Southern California wants and needs to be included in a dialogue and be part of the solution. We are currently in dialogue with the Senators on a drought bill. Title XVI, which is recycled water, WaterSMART, Republicans have been stonewalling ideas. They are not allowing bills to be given the courtesy of a hearing in the subcommittee or full committee. The Bureau of Reclamation is working with WaterSMART project funding of only $27.5 million and water recycling project funding, Title XVI, of $21.5 million, with a backlog of $400 million in congressionally approved projects. Mr. Chairman, I will submit letters in opposition: from the White House, a statement and a veto threat; from the Governor of California, Governor Brown; from the California Department of Natural Resources Secretary John Laird; from California Attorney General Kamala Harris; and from 34 diverse California environmental groups. The Western States Water Council indicates their opposition has not changed to the provisions that preempt states' rights. The bill will just create more litigation over water and not solve anything. We need to work on a bipartisan basis on putting that forth. H.R. 3964 is not such an attempt. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3964. I reserve the balance of my time. Office of the Governor, February 3, 2014. Re Opposition to H.R. 3964. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative DeFazio: California is currently experiencing the worst water crisis in our modern history. We are in our third consecutive year of extremely dry weather, and our most recent snow survey found that the Sierra snowpack--a source of water supply for 25 million Californians--is 12 percent of the normal average, the lowest ever recorded. Since declaring a drought state of emergency on January 17th, state agencies have been working closely with federal, local, and municipal agencies and others, to respond quickly. We have taken unprecedented actions to deal with the crisis, including allocating zero water deliveries to water contractors from the State Water Project for the first time in the project's history. Last week, California also released a comprehensive plan for future water management, including storage, conservation, recycling, water transfers and other actions. H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California's efforts to manage this severe crisis. It would override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies. H.R. 3964 would interfere with our ability to respond effectively and flexibly to the current emergency, and would re-open old water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our water needs. I urge you to oppose H.R. 3964. Sincerely, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman Ami Bera.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the committee.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).