Anna Eshoo: “I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of the amendment. Why? Because it states that if any fishery-related or…”

“I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of the amendment. Why? Because it states that if any fishery-related or agricultural job is lost as a result of this act, the bill will not be enacted. And I think that really sets down where we are. We need jobs in this country and not job-killing legislation. Now this legislation would undo years of negotiations reached by the State of California, local ranchers, farmers, and other users of water from the San Joaquin River. It would set up a new round of water wars, which means more employment for lawyers but not much for anyone else. My congressional district, which includes Silicon Valley and the fishing community of Half Moon Bay, is not in the delta, but my constituents oppose this legislation because their communities, their livelihoods, their resources will also be negatively affected by this bill. Now listen to what the Silicon Valley Leadership Group says, over 350 major companies in Silicon Valley: We believe that H.R. 1837 would be counterproductive to the development of a comprehensive solution to the Golden State's water programs as it overrides many existing regulations and laws concerning the delta ecosystem and undermines years of collaboration and goodwill developed by a broad coalition of actors and experts. And this mention of broad coalition, it's why this bill stinks, in plain English, because there's not a coalition. You have to build from the ground up with the stakeholders.…”