On the recordJuly 10, 2014
I have great respect for my friend from the Sacramento Valley and the water users he represents, but I must rise in opposition to this amendment. However well-intentioned, it has two fatal flaws. The first is that it is completely unnecessary. Second, it directly interferes with the Federal court's ability to administer the law. So let's start with the first one, the unnecessary part. It is true that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in this pending litigation because these long-term Sacramento River contracts were signed on the basis of an invalidated biological opinion. But what my colleagues should know is that no party in this ongoing litigation is seeking to terminate water deliveries, nor is anybody asking for the immediate alteration or interruption of deliveries. The litigation has been going on for years, and my understanding is that there is no court action scheduled that could have any effect on water deliveries in the coming years. If the contracts are ultimately changed to protect California salmon fisheries, that would be many years down the line, and the Sacramento River contractors will have the opportunity to negotiate changes directly with the Interior Department in a public process. That is how it works. So this amendment puts us in a strange position of trying to bar the Bureau of Reclamation from terminating water deliveries that nobody has asked them to terminate in anticipation of a court order that nobody is seeking.…
