Huffman Votes Against House Republican Water Bill

December 09, 2014

WASHINGTON­—Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) today voted against H.R. 5781, so-called “California Emergency Drought Relief Act.” The legislation, introduced on December 2nd, was sent to the House Floor without any committee review or input from any state or federal water agencies, fishing interests, or tribes. H.R. 5781 would micromanage the water systems of California and put significant pressure on North Coast rivers and Northern California salmon populations. 

Yesterday Huffman spoke against the bill on the House floor and reminded his colleagues that Northern California Democrats have been excluded from negotiations over the bill, despite its impacts on his district:

“The proponents of this bill say that it’s the result of bipartisan collaboration. Really? Those of us who represent Northern California’s fishing industries, tribes, farmers and communities have been systematically kept out of the room and even kept out of the conversation. Last month, we learned that members of our state’s Republican delegation refused to even brief Senator Barbara Boxer if Northern California Democrats like me were even in the room.

“This is no way to negotiate something this important, it’s a terrible precedent for other states as well and that is why I am glad that Senator Boxer has been so clear in stating her opposition to it, that it would ignite water wars in California, not solve problems and I’m glad that over the weekend we received a veto recommendation from the Obama Administration.”

Huffman also reminded his colleagues that the federal water export pumps running right now are not pumping at higher capacity in order to protect municipal, industrial and agricultural water quality—not because of the Endangered Species Act:

“I want to remind my colleagues that the state and federal water export pumps in the Delta right now are operating at more than 5,000 cubic feet per second. The only reason they are not pumping even faster is not to protect fish and wildlife, not because of the Endangered Species Act, none of the other boogie men that we hear as a justification for this bill. No, the reason those pumps are not going even faster is because of standards set by the state of California to protect water quality for municipal, industrial and agricultural and other uses in the system.”

The legislation passed the House by a vote of 230-182. The Obama Administration issued a veto threat on the bill and the Brown Administration wrote to Congress opposing its passage.

A full transcript of his speech can be found below and a video can be found HERE.

[[{"fid":"409","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full"},"type":"media","attributes":{"alt":"Huffman on Bad Republican Water Bill","height":"380","width":"640","class":"media-element file-full"}}]]

“Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues from other states may be experiencing a sense of déjà vu right now. Yes, this is the second time this year that the House has voted on a California water bill that would harm Northern California fisheries, tribes and communities, that would undermine state law, that would deprive water managers of the flexibility they need and that would micromanage the complex water system of California.

“And to make sure we are all dealing with the same facts, I want to remind my colleagues that the state and federal water export pumps in the Delta right now are operating at more than 5,000 cubic feet per second. The only reason they are not pumping even faster is not to protect fish and wildlife, not because of the Endangered Species Act, none of the other boogie men that we hear as a justification for this bill. No, the reason those pumps are not going even faster is because of standards set by the state of California to protect water quality for municipal, industrial and agricultural and other uses in the system. So the only way that this bill could deliver more water today – well there is no way it could deliver more water today – and the only way it could deliver more water in other times of the year is by taking it away from other water users and other beneficial uses in our state.

"With that inconvenient fact out of the way, let’s talk about the process that brought us here today.

“H.R. 5781 has never been reviewed by the Authorizing Committee, let alone marked up in open session. Nor have we received the input of state or federal agencies who have the responsibility over clean water and fisheries management. Nor have we received the input of effected local water agencies, of commercial and recreational fishing interests, of tribes, including ones that I represent, or other communities that will surely be impacted negatively if this were to become law.

“The proponents of this bill say that it’s the result of bipartisan collaboration. Really? Those of us who represent Northern California’s fishing industries, tribes, farmers and communities have been systematically kept out of the room and even kept out of the conversation. Last month, we learned that members of our state’s Republican delegation refused to even brief Senator Barbara Boxer if Northern California Democrats like me were even in the room. This is no way to negotiate something this important, it’s a terrible precedent for other states as well and that is why I am glad that Senator Boxer has been so clear in stating her opposition to it, that it would ignite water wars in California, not solve problems and I’m glad that over the weekend we received a veto recommendation from the Obama Administration.

“Now on Saturday, the Pacific Fishery Management Council sent me a letter about the bill. I asked them how they felt it would affect western fisheries in this country, and here is what they said:

“H.R. 5781 would override endangered species act protections for salmon, steelhead and other species in the Bay Delta in order to allow increased pumping from the Delta in excess of scientifically justified levels. In 2008 and 2009, $158M in Congressional aid was provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean salmon fisheries off California and Oregon, south of Cape Falcon, due to a collapse of this very same fishery. These fisheries were an important source of jobs for coastal communities, which cannot be replaced simply through disaster relief. Without adjustments to this bill, we fear such a disaster could be repeated in the reasonably near future.”

“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this letter in the record at this time.

“In addition, California’s Recreational and Commercial Fishing Interests sent a letter on Friday with their concerns that this legislation would “harm potentially disastrously the communities, families and thousands of fishing jobs in California and Oregon that depend on the health of the bay delta and its salmon runs.

“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include their letter in the record at this time as well.

“At the Rules Committee debate I raised a series of important technical questions about flaws in this Bill. Unfortunately the House Majority has decided that it cannot be amended through an open rule.

“If we did have the benefit of a hearing, or even just an opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to address some of these, but so far no body has answered some of these key technical questions.

“First, does the bill allow the state water board basically to do its job if we head into the fourth year of a critical drought? Doing things like issuing curtailment orders, possibly rationing orders. These are tough calls that our state’s water referee has to make. This bill does not appear to allow them the flexibility to do that.

“Does the bill, which directs federal government to provide maximum quantities of water supplies possible next year, allow the federal government to do other things necessary to operate the system – like filling reservoirs, holding water for public health purposes, or when it might be needed, even for other water contractors?

“Does the bill put additional pressure on the Trinity River, which I represent, and the tribes that have depended for their traditions and their subsistence on healthy salmon populations for millennia?

“There are many other questions that are unanswered about this bill. It is not ready for primetime, it is not good policy and I urge my colleagues to vote no.

###