On the recordJune 5, 2012
I do rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Alaska on behalf of the gentleman from California. In 2009, the Congress ratified the San Joaquin Settlement Act, which ended 18 years of litigation in the Central Valley of California over water. The agreement was supported by the Bush administration and California's then-Republican Governor Schwarzenegger. The Federal authorizing legislation was initially cosponsored by Congressman Pombo in the House and Senator Feinstein in the Senate. If the amendment that has been offered were adopted, I believe we would be undermining the San Joaquin River agreement, which, if it were to stand, would land this case back in court. If the court is forced to take over river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of losing the 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement. By blocking funding for efforts to restore salmon, the Denham amendment offered by Mr. Young would potentially end the broadly supported and bipartisan effort to restore the San Joaquin River while also improving water supply management, flood protections, and water quality. Therefore, I do insist on objecting to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
