THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

The Reid amendment ties the water rights to endangered species. We have

[Page: S473]  GPO's PDF

   As we know, the Endangered Species Act requires consultation for any Federal action that affects species. That requirement could be applied to transfer of water rights back to the landowner on termination of the agreement.

   Does the landowner have to establish that there is no longer a need for the water by the listed species? The landowner is placed in an expensive and dangerous position of proof--a difficult proposition that, if not answered, could mean the landowner loses his water right.

   When water habits and availability of water to the land are changed, this alters the character of the land. In a region that receives far too little rain to depend on skies for moisture, a deprivation of water, no matter how permanent, could change the very nature of the ground itself.

   Again, I would like to cite, in this context, my own personal experience. I grew up on a ranch. We had many hay meadows, and they were watered with flood irrigation. No longer is that ranch under private ownership. It is now owned by the Federal Government. They quit the surface right irrigation. It dried up all the springs that were feeding into this river that ran through the place. As a result, we see that that river dries up and is bone dry.

   I see my colleague from Iowa wants to be recognized for a minute. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.

   Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding without losing his right to the floor.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list I will send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments in order to S. 1731; that they be subject to second-degree amendments which must be relevant to the amendment to which it is offered; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 199, H.R. 2646, the House companion; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1731, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate then vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with a ratio of four to three; that S. 1731 be returned to the calendar, with this action occurring with no intervening action or debate.

   Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, for the information of Senators, tomorrow we have a number of people who have agreed to come and offer amendments: Senator Conrad at 9:30; Senator Santorum at 10; Senator Lincoln at 10; and Senator Feinstein at or about 12.

   I am not asking that this be part of the unanimous consent request but just to alert everybody, tomorrow there will be amendments offered. The two leaders will agree on when we will vote. There will be no votes tomorrow, as has been announced. Tomorrow we will be open for business to try to move this bill along.

   I withdraw my reservation.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The list is as follows:

   Baucus: Disaster assistance.

   Bingaman: Peanuts (amendment No. 2573).

   Bond: Relevant (2).

   Boxer: Regional equity.

   Boxer: Relevant (2).

   Bunning: Relevant (2).

   Burns: CRP (2).

   Byrd: Relevant (2).

   Carnahan: Relevant.

   Collins: Relevant.

   Conrad: Relevant.

   Conrad: Sugar beet acreage allocations.

   Craig: Strike packer ownership language.

   Crapo: Strike water rights provision.

   Daschle: Relevant to list (3).

   Daschle: Relevant (2).

   Dayton: Milk quotas.

   DeWine: Food Aid.

   Domenici: Dairy (2).

   Domenici: Peanut.

   Enzi: Lamb as food aid.

   Enzi: Make livestock program permanent.

   Feingold: Ag Fair Practices Act.

   Feingold: Relevent (3).

   Feinstein: Sugar Quota shortfall reallocation.

   Gramm: Avocado checkoff.

   Gramm: Immigrants/Food stamps.

   Gramm: Payment limitation.

   Gregg: Capitol gains.

   Gregg: Tobacco.

   Harkin: Managers' amendments.

   Harkin: Relevant to list.

   Harkin: Relevant (2).

   Helms: Animal Welfare Act.

   Helms: Relevant (2).

   Hutchinson: Agro-terrorism.

   Hutchinson: Predatory species.

   Hutchinson: Relevant (2).

   Inhofe: Peanuts (2).

   Inhofe: Relevant.

   Inhofe: Trade/Cuba.

   Kerry: New England fishermen (amendment No. 2241).

   Kyl: Death tax (sense of Senate).

   Kyl: Water rights.

   Leahy: Organics.

   Leahy: Relevant (2).

   Lincoln: Agro-terrorism.

   Lincoln: Cormorants permits.

   Lott: Relevant (2).

   Lott: Relevant to list (2).

   Lugar: Ceiling on farm spending.

   Lugar: Relevant (3).

   Lugar: Relevant to list (2).

   McCain: Relevant.

   McCain: S.O.S. farm.

   McConnell: Bear Protection Act.

   McConnell: Nutrition.

   McConnell: Relevant (2).

   Miller: Peanut quota holders.

   Nickles: Relevant (2).

   Reid: Relevant (3).

   Reid: Relevant to list.

   Roberts: Conservation.

   Roberts: LDP graze-out.

   Santorum: Puppy protection .

   Santorum: Puppy mills protection .

   Snowe: Commercial fisheries.

   Stevens: Country of origin labeling.

   Stevens: Organic labeling.

   Stevens: USDA study/salmon.

   Thompson: Relevant.

   Wellstone: Relevant.

   Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

   Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, the point I was making is that we have to be very careful in how we use our water or we could have a lot of far-reaching ramifications that have had some inadvertent effects on fish and wildlife and plant species that survive in that particular area, which simply may not be met with a ready, easy transfer of water to the Federal Government without a serious study of those ramifications. There is a serious lack of fair and open discussion on this issue.

   I remind my colleagues again, there was little congressional investigation or involvement when this language was inserted into the bill, and the committees responsible for many of the details simply were not involved in the discussion.

   One must also ask the question: What is the purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program? Our debate is focused on many things, but not once have Members had the opportunity to discuss until now whether or not the purpose of the Conservation Reserve Program is for endangered species. This program also allows for a permanent transfer of water rights. CRP has always been limited to a certain number of years.

   The Reid language also expands the basic coverage afforded to the protection of species under the Endangered Species Act. This is an important point. Not only will endangered species and threatened species be covered, but the Reid program would cover sensitive species, too.

   What is a sensitive species? At this time everyone should be reminded that the Endangered Species Act has no classification or definition of sensitive species. What happens to the other uses of the water source? Participation in the program could lead to increased delivery costs to mutual users. The costs of operating ditch companies could increase as cost share participants leave the program. Downstream users could also be affected. Participation in the program could lead to underground recharge problems.

   The language is simply too vague. It does not specify sources of water eligible to participate in the program. Not only would the language apply to surface water and CRP, but it could apply to ground water as well; a whole different set of issues become pertinent.

[Page: S474]  GPO's PDF

   My point is, this is a very complicated issue. It has a lot of ramifications. Without careful study, this could be the wrong action to be taken. It could have just the opposite effect of what the sponsor would like to accomplish.

   I rise in support of the Crapo amendment. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

   Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Crapo amendment to strike the proposed Water Conservation Program from the farm bill that we are debating today on the Senate floor.

   The creation of the Water Conservation Program, as proposed in this current legislation, would set a very dangerous farm policy precedent. It would open the door to federal government infringement on state water rights. There would be many unintended consequences for the nation's agricultural producers--the people we are trying to assist today.

   This provision is a threat to private property rights and conflicts with individual state water laws and programs.

   As Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns said:

   To tie state-administered water rights into such a program creates another federal nexus whereby the federal government can leverage water away from our agricultural producers and water users permanently. ...... Nebraska simply cannot agree to any such program.

   Governor Johanns clearly identified the dangers of the current legislation.

   All states care about water conservation and wildlife protection . For example, the State of Nebraska is currently working with Wyoming and Colorado, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft a Cooperative Agreement for endangered species management on the Platte River. States do not need more federal dictates and regulation.

   As one irrigation district manager in western Nebraska said, ``there could be significant consequences with this water conservation proposal as it is written in this legislation. The process of evaluating these impacts would be very complicated. Each state has different laws and issues.''

   Additionally, the current proposal has not been debated in the House or Senate Agriculture Committees, or in the oversight committees responsible for the Endangered Species Act. This issue deserves significant study, review and analysis before we move forward with federal legislation.

   There are too many problems in this proposal--too many questions yet to be answered. We should not impose additional, unnecessary restrictions on water and property rights for our states and our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to strike the Water Conservation Program from the underlying bill.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

   Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will be brief. I will come back on Monday or Tuesday and talk more about it. I rise, too, in support of the Crapo amendment.

   Certainly for those of us in the West there is nothing more important than water rights and how we handle those water rights, nothing more important to us than to maintain the concept of State allocation of water adjudication. And this threatens that, it preempts State water rights. It has the possibility of doing that. That could result in permanent acquisition of the water rights, which is not something that any of us want to see happen.

   It extends authority of the Endangered Species Act to USDA. Certainly we have enough difficulties with the way the Endangered Species Act is handled now.

   This is the last one of the issues. It proposes radical changes to CRP without addressing the reform of the Endangered Species Act. These two issues do not fit together and are very inconsistent.

   Furthermore, it never was discussed in the committee. I happen to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. This was never debated during consideration of the bill. There are a number of us on the committee who certainly would have fought vigorously to keep this language out of the bill.

   Madam President, I will not take any more time. Some of my colleagues want to speak. I will be back to talk more about some of the impacts I believe this amendment will have. Again, I support the Crapo amendment. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise to support the Crapo amendment. From the statements that have been made with regard to having water language in the agriculture bill at all, it is pretty indicative of what has happened since the legislation was introduced. There has been no hearing on this legislation. It started out as a version of S. 1737. The bill never had a hearing. It has never seen the light of day. It has never seen any lightbulbs. Any time that happens in the Senate, most of us fear not what is in it but what is not in it.

   This summer, we had a crisis in the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon, southeastern Oregon, and northern California. Anybody who depends on water for irrigation and their farm operations should be very concerned about this amendment.

   We have heard a lot of Western Senators make statements, but this is not only a problem that is confined to the West. We now have a little argument over a river that runs between Alabama and Georgia. As populations grow, we will hear of more conflicts in areas where water law or water policy has never before been considered.

   Last weekend, of course, all the papers were full of Enron, but there was a very interesting article in Monday's Washington Post with regard to a National Science Foundation study that was released. It was very critical of the science that was a part of the decision to shut off the water to the agricultural interests in the Klamath Basin.

   Madam President, 1,500 farmers were denied water for their irrigation projects. Crops burned up. We have seen filings of bankruptcy, people losing their farms because in farming, a tenuous endeavor, one cannot afford to see one crop missed or they

   will not have anything at all, all because of the Endangered Species Act.

   That made me wonder about a lot of other studies the Government has done. Are they credible? And what kind of responsibility have we taken on as a Government to make sure that the science is correct to the best of our knowledge?

   Ever since, any legislation that comes before this body that has to do with the Endangered Species Act as it relates to water raises many questions.

   Congress has had a longstanding policy that water rights, even water rights for conservation, even water that would be classified as preservation, always had to come to terms with the States involved. It is a State's right of controlling and adjudicating its own resources. This Government has never even taken a look at that until the beginning of the last administration when we had a Secretary of Interior who was very forthright in his belief that the Federal Government should control all water resources across this country.

   This is a part of the farm bill that is most troubling to most of us. We will have more to say on this before we vote on this amendment, which comes up on Tuesday. I assume that is the tentative schedule.

   We see new terms entered in this issue. We know what an ``endangered specie'' is. We have a definition of a ``threatened specie.'' But this is the first time we have heard the term ``sensitive specie.'' Maybe that category is those who serve in this body.

   As we look at what happened in the Klamath Basin, as we look at another little item that happened in Washington State when there was a deliberate planting of the Canadian lynx hair to prove this was habitat for another specie that is on the threatened list and yet has not been classified as endangered just to control the use of the land, we have to look with a very suspicious eye at what we are doing to this country and its ability to produce food and fiber for its citizens.

   Can that agenda be so treacherous as to deny us, the American people, the ability to clothe and feed ourselves? Right now, with the attitude I see in some communities, I would say that is the case.

   There are a lot of unintended consequences of this language that could happen later, and all of them are negative. There is nothing positive. This does nothing for agriculture, as we know it, and our ability to produce crops and fiber.

[Page: S475]  GPO's PDF

   From that standpoint alone, I ask my colleagues who represent States where agriculture plays a major role in their economy to take a look at this and ask themselves: Is this farm policy? Is this food security policy? I can see no way that one can find a positive answer.

   Any time we have big brother, who has the big checkbook, standing in the wings to control the lifeblood of any crop, whether it falls from the sky, whether it runs down our streams, or the capillary or the underground rivers of groundwater under their control, something so vital that it is even recommended we have eight glasses a day--or it used to be--something so vital to life, would we want that kind of control in the hands of a government, sometimes a government that is insensitive to what we have to put up with in the production of food and fiber for this country?

   So as the weekend rolls on and as we take time to study this issue, I think that is a question for this body. Do we pass legislation that has never had a hearing, that has never been presented before any committee, and then wonder about the question that is being raised tonight? Remember, we are doing business that will affect people with real faces, with real investments, in the real world. It is not some harebrained idea that has been generated in this 17 square miles of logic-free environment because it does have a true effect on every person who lives in this country, not just us who live in the West but everybody who lives in this country.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display