Jared Huffman

When we listed the lesser prairie chicken, we designated two DPSs, a northern and a southern.

And sometimes species move into unoccupied habitat. Sometimes you need to restore habitat that is maybe currently not suitable if you are serious about recovering a species. Is that fair to say?

So, you believe the listing creates an adversarial element?

I just have to believe that it is important to get these voluntary and collaborative efforts rolling...

It gives the agency another 6 years to contemplate things, when really they have had 20, 25 years.

No one before you today is better suited to testify about why life as they know it and prefer it could not go on without lobstermen.

What about H.J. Res. 46, which reimposes the very narrow definition of 'habitat' from the Trump administration? Why would locking that definition of 'habitat' into ESA practice be so problematic?

I think everybody would love to wake up tomorrow and have that be something that everyone could just use.

I haven't given up on the concept of Republican environmentalists, and I love the fact that there are some friends across the aisle that are comfortable with that term.

To claim that environmental laws are the reason that we don't have more storage in Western states requires you to ignore a lot of facts.

In recent years, my home state of California has added 6 million acre-feet of new surface and groundwater storage, all while foundational environmental laws like NEPA and the ESA were in place.

So, I think it is extraordinarily important that this hearing be successful today.

It just seems common sense that we need to set rates so that users are held responsible for repaying those true costs of capturing and delivering their water.

the primary impediment to new dams is the enormous cost of these projects

This week, they are scapegoating environmental laws for our water challenges.

Having user pay principle in any infrastructure--and honestly, in almost any program--is important because it helps stretch taxpayer dollars farther.

some of my colleagues just can't let go of the notion that we should focus almost entirely on big dams

Rest assured, though, a couple of months down the road, when we get to the debt ceiling, you will hear a lot of rhetoric about fiscal conservatism and fiscal restraint.

Not having an accurate price for the true cost of water or other resources is a common problem in Federal policy.

your testimony that we should continue the 120-year policy of beneficiary pays and look at things like cost effectiveness when we consider Federal investments in water infrastructure has touched a nerve.

the many water supply enhancement projects that are going to happen in the years ahead because of the record amount of money--$8 billion--we invested in last year's Congress

Attacking environmental laws may be great politics in some places, but it is not a serious response to complex Western water challenges.

I found it pretty sensible.

The Interior Department has told this Committee that they are not aware of a single Reclamation dam that has ever been denied construction because of delays associated with environmental review.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Well, Mr. Sewell, apparently your testimony that we should continue the 120-year policy of beneficiary pays and look at things like cost effectiveness when we consider Federal investments in water infrastructure has…