<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><h2 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 0.5in; ">Democrats work to rally opposition to Calif. rule rewrite effort <span class="origin">(06/14/2011)</span><o:p></o:p></h2><h5 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: bold; ">Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter<o:p></o:p></h5><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><a href="http://www.eenews.net/">http://www.eenews.net/</a></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">More people need to realize the dangers of a GOP bill on California water and exert pressure to stop it, a key House Democrat said yesterday.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><a href="http://www.eenews.net/bills/111/House/270511123337.pdf" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">H.R. 1837</a> could set a dangerous precedent and affect water users not just in California but in any state, said Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"I'm hoping people wake up and put pressure on this House of Representatives to not allow it to pass the full committee and then to the floor because it is detrimental," Napolitano said.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">The comments followed a subcommittee hearing on the bill from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Napolitano urged some of the hearing witnesses to write editorials opposing the measure and said that she is trying to stir opposition.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">The hearing was the second on the measure. During a June 3 examination of the bill, Democrats said they needed a second hearing to present other witnesses who would be affected by the law including "fishermen, delta farmers, urban communities and many others" (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2011/05/31/archive/15" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; "><i>E&E Daily</i></a>, June 3).<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Republicans rejected that argument, calling it a stall tactic. Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) was the sole GOP panel member at yesterday's hearing.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"Not a single new argument has been raised," McClintock said, adding that all of the Democratic claims about the bill were "debunked" at the first hearing.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Called the "San Joaquin Water Reliability Act," Nunes' bill would repeal a 2009 law on central California water uses and replace it with 1994 rules from an agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord. The measure would set compliance with the Endangered Species Act to that year.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">The current governance on water in the region became law when the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was included in a 2009 omnibus lands bill. Feinstein's measure enacted a 2006 court agreement on water flows, salmon and endangered species in the San Joaquin River. The Natural Resources Defense Council and others had sued the Interior and Commerce departments over rules in place since the early 1990s. Under the court settlement, new limits were placed on the amounts of water certain farmers can take for irrigation.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Nunes' bill, in addition to stripping out those restrictions, would eliminate an existing tiered pricing system for water use. It would change water contracts so they last 40 years instead of 25, and they could be automatically renewed. It also would eliminate a requirement that new and renewed contracts must undergo an environmental impact study.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Asked about Napolitano's efforts at rallying opposition, Nunes spokesman Andrew House said Nunes does not anticipate problems with passage.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"We think we have the bipartisan votes to get out of markup," House said. "There's no question about that." There should also be sufficient votes for committee and floor passage, House said.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) both have written letters opposing the bill. Democrats hope that means the measure will ultimately die in the upper chamber even if it passes the House.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"With both our senators [from California] in the Senate against it, if it does get pass the House, I'm assuming that the senators will make sure that it's blocked on the Senate side," Napolitano said.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">There are many ways to enact a law, House said, noting that Feinstein's 2009 measure was included in an omnibus bill.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"There are a lot of options to legislate before the end of the year," House said, and Nunes and Republicans will be "looking for opportunities to make law."<o:p></o:p></p><h3 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 13.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: bold; ">Charges of favoritism<o:p></o:p></h3><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">All witnesses at yesterday's event opposed the bill. David Bitts, president of the Eureka, Calif.-based Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, said the measure could devastate some fisheries.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"It looks to us like this bill would lead to destruction of the salmon resource in California and therefore the destruction of our fisheries," Bitts said, adding that it could hurt fisheries that seek other breeds as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Too much has changed since 1994 in California's Bay Delta region that "trying to nail down a remedy based on the '94 accords is obsolete and will not work," testified Will Steele, regional administrator of Seattle-based National Marine Fisheries Service.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Democratic panel members criticized the bill as an attempt to favor agricultural users in the Fresno-based Westlands Water District.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"It is very difficult to describe the extremism and the radicalism of this legislation," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who is not on the Natural Resources Committee but joined the panel for the hearing.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">There is a great body of law governing Western water, Miller said, and "to now come in and to set off this explosion and decide that all of this law will be pushed aside, that one district with an absolute entitlement mentality will be able to take whatever they deem to be necessary for them to take, and that everybody else will pay the price for that."<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Miller and McClintock battled over the latter's statement that Democratic charges about the bill had been "debunked."<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"Somebody better read the testimony before making those statements," Miller said, referring to the June 3 hearing witness statements.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">McClintock snapped back at Miller that "if he would have attended the previous hearing he would have heard that all of those arguments were previously debunked."<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">McClintock also said that "no legislation will clear this subcommittee that undermines local area water rights."<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">After the hearing Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) said McClintock is in "jeopardy" with his own constituents because he backs a measure that would "steal" water from mountain and northern regions and give it to users in Westlands Water District.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">"This is a modern day version of Chinatown," Garamendi added after the hearing, referring to Roman Polanski's film-noir classic that revolves around a water scam in 1930s-era Los Angeles.<o:p></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">McClintock's office declined to comment on Garamendi's statement.<o:p></o:p></p><div style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; "><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>