2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Specify That The Underlying California Drought Aid Bill Would Not Negatively Affect Pacific Northwest Sport Fishing Or Salmon Population. In December 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would protect Northwest sport fishing and salmon populations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would clarify that nothing in the bill would negatively affect the Pacific Northwest sport fishing industries or any population of salmon." The underlying bill was the California Drought Relief. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion 182 to 228. [House Vote 552, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14]
Rep. George Miller (D-CA): Bill Would Devastate The Salmon Population And Harm Thousands Of Small Businesses." According to a floor speech by Rep. Miller, "Where does that leave us? With a bill intended to help one region of California at the expense of endangered species that could end up hurting millions of dollars' worth of commercial fishing interests, farmers, tribes, and neighboring States. My amendment would fix that. First, it clarifies that nothing in this bill would adversely impact the fishing industries in California, Oregon, or Washington. Without this clarification, the bill would result in exporting additional water, which would devastate the salmon population and harm thousands of small businesses and commercial fishermen." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): Bill Includes Sections That Already Fix These Problems. In a floor speech, Rep. Hastings said, "The bill under consideration today is a short-term fix to something that needs a long-term fix. And the gentleman made a number of arguments, but I think the gentleman failed to read the bill because there are two specific sections in there that are contrary to what he is asserting would happen. Those are section 203 and section 301." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Specify That The Underlying California Drought Bill Would Not Undermine Native American Tribal Sovereignty Or Reduce Their Water Supply. In December 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would protect Northwest sport fishing and salmon populations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would clarify that nothing in the bill would [...] undermine Native American tribal sovereignty or reduce the quantity or quality of water made available by affected Indian tribes." The underlying bill was the California Drought Relief. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion 182 to 228. [House Vote 552, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14]
Rep. George Miller (D-CA): Bill Could Impact Native American Tribal Sovereignty And Their Water. "Finally, my amendment clarifies that the bill protects tribal sovereignty and won't reduce the quality and quantity of water provided to the Indian tribes under the Federal Government's tribal trust obligations. To give you one example of a tribe that could be harmed by this legislation, the Hoopa Valley Tribe in Humboldt County is dependent on water from the Trinity River. Their economy is dependent upon it, their fisheries are dependent upon it, and the tourism of the tribe is dependent upon the water of this river. We already saw this year emergency water releases from the Trinity River to prevent mass fish kills. If the water is all pumped out of the dam before then, the problem is there won't be any to help the tribe or to help other parts of the economy lower in the State." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): Bill Includes Sections That Already Fix These Problems. In a floor speech, Rep. Hastings said, "The bill under consideration today is a short-term fix to something that needs a long-term fix. And the gentleman made a number of arguments, but I think the gentleman failed to read the bill because there are two specific sections in there that are contrary to what he is asserting would happen. Those are section 203 and section 301." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]
2014: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Specify That The Underlying California Drought Bill Would Not Create Any Legal Precedent For Any Other State than California On Water rights. In December 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would protect Northwest sport fishing and salmon populations. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would clarify that nothing in the bill would [...] create any legal precedent for any state other than California on water rights." The underlying bill was the California Drought Relief. The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion 182 to 228. [House Vote 552, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14; Congressional Quarterly, 12/9/14]
Rep. George Miller (D-CA): Bill Could Create Precedent Of Impacting Other Water Rights In Other States. "Second, my bill would clarify that this bill would not create a precedent of impacting water rights in other States. This bill is a major rewrite of California's water rights, plain and simple. Most notably, under existing State water rights, the bill's increased pumping for the Central Valley Project would require a reduction in State water project pumping; yet the bill specifically mandates that the water supply for the State water project cannot be reduced, contrary to California law. This will mean that a small subgroup of water users in California will get a higher priority access to water than they are entitled to under their contracts." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): Bill Includes Sections That Already Fix These Problems. In a floor speech, Rep. Hastings said, "The bill under consideration today is a short-term fix to something that needs a long-term fix. And the gentleman made a number of arguments, but I think the gentleman failed to read the bill because there are two specific sections in there that are contrary to what he is asserting would happen. Those are section 203 and section 301." [Congressional Record, 12/9/14]