Grace Napolitano: “The legislation we have to consider today is flawed on many levels-- it is flawed on process; it is flawed on policy…”

“The legislation we have to consider today is flawed on many levels-- it is flawed on process; it is flawed on policy; and it is flawed in claiming that it protects States' water rights. H.R. 3189 does not solve the problem--it creates more problems--because it is so broadly written and has no chance of being enacted into law. The majority introduced the Water Rights Protection Act as a way to protect private property rights. It is not about protecting private property rights. It is not about protecting States' water rights. It goes in the opposite direction, that of creating a new Federal definition of a ``water right'' when we have not had a hearing on that particular point. Water rights have, for more than four centuries in American law, been defined as a matter of State law. If the majority is really concerned about Federal overreach, creating a sweeping new Federal definition of a ``water right'' without even a single hearing is not the best choice. H.R. 3189 only had a hearing, and it was held during the government shutdown, during the sequestration. As a result, the agencies affected were not able to provide expert analysis because they were not able to be at the hearing to talk to the bill's impacts. The bill's incomplete legislative record was worsened by the committee markup, whereby a clumsily drafted savings clause was added.…”