Costa Stands Up for the Valley, Urges Cooperation During Water Hearing
Washington, DC – Congressman Jim Costa (D-Fresno) continued working to find comprehensive solutions to California's broken water system during a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1837, the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act. Costa urged cooperation among all stakeholders, but emphasized that California's Central Valley has historically borne the brunt of the sacrifices required by previous water compromises.
"The fact of the matter is that the Central Valley has been a target with a bull's-eye on it for years," Costa said. "If we are going to find real water solutions in California, there must be shared sacrifice among all stakeholders and all regions."
Costa pledged his support for improving H.R. 1837 and moving it forward in the House of Representatives, but cautioned that the bill's success will depend on cooperation.
"Unless we are willing to work with Senator Feinstein, the Department of the Interior and the State of California, this measure – as it is proposed today – will never become law in the 112th Congress."
Costa's prepared remarks are below:
Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Napolitano, for holding today's hearing on H.R. 1837 – the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act.
In the San Joaquin Valley, we share a common goal: restoring a sustainable and reliable water supply for the farmers, farmworkers, and farm communities that feed our state, the nation, and the world.
California's water system is broken. The system was built for 20 million people, we have 38 million people today, and our population is expected to reach 50 million in two decades.
There has never has been and there never will be a silver bullet, but we must work to find the art of the possible.
While H.R. 1837 is not perfect and there are issues that need to be worked out before it could become law, I am happy to participate and lend my support as the bill moves through the legislative process.
The bill tackles many of the same issues I have been working to resolve over the past several years.
Titles I and III aim to address one of our biggest challenges in California water policy: federal and state water laws have changed not just with new legislatures, but with different administrations. The letter of the law, the interpretation of the law, and the implementation of these laws are constantly in flux. It's unfortunately why we have been in court for decades.
Case in point: the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA). Mr. Birmingham's testimony makes a fairly strong case for why the implementation of that law and its interpretation has not matched Congressional intent. We have been trying to fix this administratively since CVPIA's inception, but there are many other examples.
The measure is similar in concept to legislation I introduced earlier this year with Congressman Cardoza, H.R. 1251 – the More Water for Our Valley Act of 2011. The bill seeks to provide Congressional direction for the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and restore balance to our water availability that is lacking. Our Valley's water supply needs certainty while we work on long-term solutions like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. This provision embodies that kind of goal, and I support the concept.
Title II of the bill before us repeals and replaces the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Settlement is not perfect. However, those water districts that asked Senator Feinstein and I to carry the implementing legislation in 2006 are not asking for this repeal-and-replace language.
The program will likely be seriously underfunded in the coming years, and there is no viable strategy for making up a multimillion dollar shortfall in spite of our best efforts.
Moreover, there are third-parties to the Settlement who have had to deal with damages as a result of restoration flows, and there is not yet a clearly established process for mitigation or compensation. This legislation does not address these matters.
For these reasons and the budget realities of the next 5 years, I believe we should re-examine this program and remain open to a discussion regarding the merits of this policy, in the long-term.
The Settlement had nearly three years of Congressional review, House and Senate hearings and markups, numerous Members negotiating with all affected California water agencies and the state, and much public input and intense debate. If Congress is to re-examine the San Joaquin River Settlement, we should do it in an open, thoughtful process that includes those most affected by its implementation.
I will support this legislation today and believe it will pass the committee in markup and on the Floor in the next several months. However, I also predict that unless we are willing to work with Senator Feinstein and the Department of the Interior, this measure as it is proposed today will never become law in the 112th Congress.
We have our work cut out for us.