Re: HR1837 Sen. Feinstein's reply - here's mine

Posted by Barry W on 2012-03-06 14:53:33 in reply to HR1837 Sen. Feinstein's reply posted by Doug Jeffries on 2012-03-06 10:53:38

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to the "San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act." I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond. On May 11, 2011, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced the "San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act" (H.R.1837). This legislation would waive and preempt the California Endangered Species Act (ESA), undermine the federal ESA, and repeal the 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Act. H.R. 1837 is currently awaiting action in the House Committee on Natural Resources. As you may know, on June 7, 2011, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and I wrote a letter to members of the House Natural Resources Committee to express our opposition to this legislation. I have attached the letter for your review. I appreciate knowing your opposition to the "San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act," and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should the Senate consider this or similar legislation during the 112th Congress. Again, thank you for taking the time to write. Should you have any other questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. June 7, 2011 The Honorable Tom McClintock Chair, Subcommittee on Water and Power House Natural Resources Committee 1522 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Grace Napolitano Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power House Natural Resources Committee 1329 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Napolitano: We write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act, and would like to take the opportunity to explain our position. While we have been working to develop solutions to alleviate frequent water shortages experienced by some San Joaquin Valley farmers, those proposed in H.R. 1837 are dramatic overkill. For example, the bill proposes to: o Preempt and waive the California Endangered Species Act; o Deem the outdated biological opinion for the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord sufficient protection for fish under the federal Endangered Species Act, ignoring the recent collapse of salmon, smelt and other species; o Preempt and waive the California Fish and Game Code provision which requires fish to be maintained in a river below a dam; o Repeal the 2009 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, as well as the court-approved, legally binding settlement upon which the legislation was based, notwithstanding that the settling parties still support the settlement; and, o Severely weaken the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act by significantly reducing its fish-doubling goal and removing the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to alter future water contracts, even for compelling reasons. Because H.R. 1837 proposes to radically alter the legal framework used to manage water in the state, we believe it will negatively impact ongoing efforts to address problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The only durable solution for the Delta's problems is identified in the landmark bipartisan State legislation enacted just two years ago, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009, which requires accomplishment of the two coequal goals of water reliability and ecosystem restoration. Yet H.R. 1837 decimates efforts to achieve these interrelated goals. As a result, the bill would undermine the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), the broadly supported state-federal program responsible for developing water conveyance and ecosystem restoration projects in the Delta. Another troubling aspect of this bill is its attack on states' rights and state control of its water resources. The bill's explicit preemption of California law runs contrary to the long established tradition of Congressional and court deference to states on water resource decisions. Consequently, this bill sets a very dangerous precedent of Congressional intervention into state water rights, which could have far reaching consequences not only for California, but for other states as well. It is our belief that this bill is fraught with legal controversy that will seriously set back California's ability to resolve its water challenges. Bottom line, the answers to California's water challenges lie not in radical proposals to eviscerate state and federal environmental laws and water rights, but rather through the development of balanced, consensus-based solutions that respect the interests of all stakeholders. Thank you for your time and consideration of our views. Sincerely, Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator Barbara Boxer, United States Senator

Follow ups:

• Re: HR1837 Sen. Feinstein's reply - here's mine - Dan Blanton - 2012-03-06 14:56:02 (0)