Member Q&A with panel on tribal water rights, Florida 404, Hetch Hetchy, and ESA options
Members conduct extended questioning of witnesses on the need for finality and schedule flexibility in tribal water settlements, the performance and environmental record of Florida’s 404 program, state versus federal roles in ESA and wildlife management, the fairness of Hetch Hetchy financial terms, and whether Florida can regain 404 authority by curing ESA deficiencies instead of legislating around adverse court rulings, before the Chair closes the hearing and sets deadlines for written responses.
In this chapter
- Chair’s explanation of large panel and shift to Q&A
- Hageman, Leger Fernandez: Agua Caliente and Pechanga settlement details
- Leger Fernandez and Moquino: rationale for extending Aamodt deadlines
- Maloy and Hageman: Florida 404 performance and state wildlife management
- Stansbury: historical context and urgency of Aamodt completion
- McDowell and Hageman: critique of federal overreach and Hetch Hetchy terms
- Hoyle and Crooks: alternatives to legislating around ESA compliance
- Hearing close and record deadlines