Washington—U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (both D-Calif.) today sent a letter to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power expressing their firm opposition to the San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act (H.R. 1837).

The letter outlines provisions in the legislation the senators characterize as “fraught with legal controversy,” adding that the legislation would “seriously set back California’s ability to resolve its water challenges.”

Senator Feinstein, Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, said: “I strongly oppose this bill, which I believe is dramatic overkill. Its reverberations would include waiving the state and federal Endangered Species Acts for water pumping from the Delta and the return of many environmental regulations to 1994 levels. It would also seriously undermine the Bay Delta Conservation planning effort.”

Senator Boxer, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said: “We need to work together on common-sense solutions to meet California’s water needs, not push radical proposals that will only lead to more legal battles and weaken federal and state laws that protect the environment.”

Senator Feinstein was the author of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, which implements the 2006 settlement between the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Friant Water Users Authority.

Following is the text of their letter:

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:

• Preempt and waive the California Endangered Species Act;
• Deem the outdated biological opinion for the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord sufficient protection for fish under the federal Endangered Species Act, ignoring the recent collapse of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;
• Preempt and waive the California Fish and Game Code provision which requires fish to be maintained in a river below a dam;
• 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,
• 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

###