H.R. 1604 would streamline redundant environmental review processes that waste time, money, and deters investment in water projects.

When the cost of the environmental review alone makes a water storage project a bad investment for the welfare of human life, the regulations have reached an extreme point that stifles our ability to provide for future generations.

Lest we all forget, that a tangential benefit to developing more water storage is the ability to produce and generate more renewable electricity.

I think agriculture and the urban water users have worked closer in the last several years.

It is up to us to open the markets, to make sure that access to U.S. markets is contingent upon our access to theirs.

We found that the State Department had too few licensing officers.

I introduced, with Don Manzullo, the Defense Trade Controls Improvement Act of 2009.

When we transfer manufacturing technology, we transfer our most valuable secrets, how to make the materials involved.

A lot of companies come before Congress and wrap their agenda in jobs or the national interest.

Despite the successes of these projects and others in the West, they have been under constant assault from those with extreme agendas.

My district is representative of much of the West; where water goes, jobs follow.

It is how we have historically solved our water needs. There is not one magic solution. It is a combination of solutions.

Water users are justifiably concerned about this Administration's efforts to elevate non-structural and environmental elements over economic and safety benefits.

We both obviously support additional surface storage supply.

The cost per acre-foot, since this is what I am talking about right now, on Sites would be approximately how much on the current funding plan that you have?

I think you have to take another look.

What is the shelf life of a study?

this president has made 32 recess appointments, compared to more than a hundred recently done by past presidents.