Jared Huffman: “If we did have the benefit of a hearing or even just an opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to…”

“If we did have the benefit of a hearing or even just an opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to address some of these, but so far, nobody has answered some of these key technical questions. First, does the bill allow the State water board, basically, to do its job if we head into a fourth year of a critical drought, doing things like issuing curtailment orders and possibly rationing orders? These are tough calls that our State's water referee has to make. This bill does not appear to allow them the flexibility to do that. Does the bill, which directs the Federal Government to ``provide the maximum quantity of water supplies possible'' next year, allow the Federal Government to do other things necessary to operate the system, like filling reservoirs, holding water for public health purposes, or-- when it might be needed--even for other water contractors? Does the bill put additional pressure on the Trinity River, which I represent, and the tribes that have depended on it for their traditions and their subsistence on healthy salmon populations for millennia? There are many other questions that are unanswered about this bill. It is not ready for prime time, it is not good policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''”