Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Mar 18th, 2009 :: 2:04:10 to 2:17:45
Total video length: 9 hours 34 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:382 Duration: 0:13:35 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Dianne Feinstein

2:04:08 to 2:04:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: amendment number 683 and amendment number 675. and i do so on behalf of my friend and colleague from california, senator boxer. mr. president, these amendments would essentially throw out a -- a legal settlement agreement

Dianne Feinstein

2:04:10 to 2:17:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein

2:04:31 to 2:04:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: concerning a -- the restoration of the san wit san joaquin river. it ends 17 years of costly litigation, it is the product of four years of negotiation by the bush administration, the state of

Dianne Feinstein

2:04:52 to 2:05:14( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: agencies, the users. it affects frian, and it is a water -- friant, and it is a water district and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this district. it is big, it is impor it is critical. and by environmental and fishing groups. this was a suit brought by the

Dianne Feinstein

2:05:15 to 2:05:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: national resources defense council against -- defense counsel against the federal government and state governmen saying what happened at friant dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect salmon. i would like at this time to put into the record, if i might, at the end of my remarks, a letter

Dianne Feinstein

2:05:37 to 2:05:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: by the governor of the state of california, arnold warts anythi congressional research service spelling out the research and economical context of this

Dianne Feinstein

2:05:59 to 2:06:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: settlement thank you very much. so we have broad support for this settlement agreement. w the question is: why do we have it? the reason why we have it is that the government has lost the case.

Dianne Feinstein

2:06:20 to 2:06:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: and the result without the settlement a federal court of the san joaquin river. according to all the parties the court could and we believe would order a huge amount of water

Dianne Feinstein

2:06:44 to 2:07:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: from friant dam negatively affecting the thousands of farmers in the friant district. in contrast the settlement agreement allows o restoration of the river with minimized impact to irgated, agricultural and municipal water users. it control and other protections

Dianne Feinstein

2:07:05 to 2:07:27( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: for pri it represents a sensible and hard-fought consensus solution. i know bec came to me and asked me if i would sit down with all of the parties and try to put together this settlement agreement. and we did, in fact, do this and

Dianne Feinstein

2:07:28 to 2:07:50( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: it is of these elements. now, also the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers tha court and having the end result of having the river. that's what the alternative is.

Dianne Feinstein

2:07:51 to 2:08:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: here's why: the settlement provides element 400 million in -- $400 million in nonfederal funds. so what would have had to have been funded by the federal taxpayers will no longer. effectively the costs lowered to federal taxpayers. the affected water districts have agreed to help fund the

Dianne Feinstein

2:08:14 to 2:08:37( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: settlement with approximatel approximately $200 million. the state of california will provide another $200 millio if the coburn amendment is successful, and this is dropped from the bill, the federal government will have to pay an additional $400 millionnd face the fact that the judge could

Dianne Feinstein

2:08:38 to 2:08:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: well order a huge release of water not staggered to any particular time, in no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the farming community. the settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by providing water supply certainty

Dianne Feinstein

2:09:00 to 2:09:20( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: for users. but without the settlement water users in friant could face more severe water los potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. and, as i say, this is 15,000 separate farming entities.

Dianne Feinstein

2:09:21 to 2:09:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: and so this is unacceptable. now, critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending. that it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. but the facts prove them wrong. to get the number that the critics use, they assume that

Dianne Feinstein

2:09:42 to 2:10:02( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: only 500 fish will ever be restored of the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as a self-sustaining fishery. they ignore all other benefits of the settlement. according to this congressional research analysis that i have

Dianne Feinstein

2:10:03 to 2:10:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: just placed in the record, it is misleading to disregard the array of costs and benefits including the value that californians and united states citizens place on improvement in environmental restored runs of salmon. bottom line, the settlement

Dianne Feinstein

2:10:25 to 2:10:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: offers the best possible solution to a longstanding water fight in my state i do not believe there wasteful about it. remember, this suit has gone on for 18 years. i have talked with every one of the parties.

Dianne Feinstein

2:10:46 to 2:11:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: they have all asking for a settlement agreement including the federal government, the state of california, and, actually, the environmental group, the nrdc that sued because they believe if left to the judge, the action might be very adverse in terms

Dianne Feinstein

2:11:09 to 2:11:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: of large amounts of water, rather than being staggered and done in a more would be detrimental to the friant farmers as well as quite possibly to the fish. the other problematic amendment offered by senator coburn is number 675.

Dianne Feinstein

2:11:30 to 2:11:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: and that would remove the government's eminent domain for the public including the san settlement title. to be candid, none of us like

Dianne Feinstein

2:11:53 to 2:12:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: the use of the eminent domain. when i was mayor, i refused to use eminent domain in san francisco and never did. senator coburn's amendment ignores the basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region.

Dianne Feinstein

2:12:14 to 2:12:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: because the water comes from one place, the state is vast, it has to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that water seventh largest economy on earth. these water projects need to have the use of eminent domain

Dianne Feinstein

2:12:37 to 2:12:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: as a last water channels if land owners are willing not to seller-willing buyer basis. otherwise, the government clearly is not going to be able

Dianne Feinstein

2:12:58 to 2:13:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: to build water conduits, water projects, flood control elements where they are most needed. now that might be different in small states but in huge states like california where the water comes primarily either very north of the state, the sierra nevada mountain range owe

Dianne Feinstein

2:13:20 to 2:13:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: the colorado river where we are being weened off the colorado river, have an agreement to dramatically cut our take of water from we have to have the conveyances to move the water around state. private land owners also receive

Dianne Feinstein

2:13:42 to 2:14:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: benefit of upgraded flood protection and bypasses around key diversion points so that fish are not d irrigation supplies. this is a very sensitive, very problematic area. it has taken a lot of work to know how to do the federal government could not

Dianne Feinstein

2:14:04 to 2:14:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: build these flood and bypass measures to benefit t land owners without the ability to acquire land through eminent domain. and that's just fact. so there is a great need for water projects in my state.

Dianne Feinstein

2:14:25 to 2:14:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: if we don't m believe, will end up a dessert state. we are faced potential with warming climates, with reduced water. we are in the third year of a drought. mr. president, you might be interested in knowing that the

Dianne Feinstein

2:14:46 to 2:15:06( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: water, the big central valley of california which makes california the number one agricultural producer in america, most of that valley's water allocation for this is zero; zero. that means

Dianne Feinstein

2:15:07 to 2:15:27( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: means cutting out trees and crops so we are in a sensitive situation and i would really urge the senate to vote "no" on these coburn amendments. i think it's in and sort of second-guess a situation and not really know anything about 18 years of

Dianne Feinstein

2:15:28 to 2:15:48( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: litigation and the fact the government is going to lose the case and hing to try to work out a best for all of the parties concerned. i believe we have done it and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation. this has been approved by this

Dianne Feinstein

2:15:49 to 2:16:10( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: body once and so to remove the bill and the authority from this lands bill would be tragic. again, would have to pickuphe costs that the state of california under this settlement is willing the costs that these water

Dianne Feinstein

2:16:11 to 2:16:32( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: cont pay -- $200 million -- and do the whole job itself which will cost an additional $400 million. so these amendments are in way, shape, or form cost effective and will hamstring

Dianne Feinstein

2:16:33 to 2:16:53( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: california's effort to solve an egregious problem, an increasingly drying state in drought almost on a perpetual basis that is trying desperately to solve its problems so on behalf of both senator boxer and i, i urge these amendments.

Dianne Feinstein

2:16:54 to 2:17:14( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: i thank the i yield the floor. mr. president, i would ask, if i may, that my time not count against the time allocated for the kirk nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

Dianne Feinstein

2:17:15 to 2:17:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dianne Feinstein: i ask that the time during the quorum be the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid