Legislative Hearing on: • H.R. 177 (Rep. McClintock), “Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act” • H.R. 3717 (Rep. Harder), “Golden Mussel Eradication and Control Act of 2025” • H.R. 5935 (Rep. Calvert), “Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act” • H.R. 6869 (Rep. Leger Fernandez), To amend the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act to modify a provision relating to the extension of certain dates for the completion of the Regional Water System, and for other purposes. • H.R. 8546 (Rep. Issa), “Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act” • H.R. 9017 (Rep. Donalds), “Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act” • H.R. 9590 (Rep. Webster), “SAFE for Manatees Act” • H.R. 10117 (Rep. Steube), “GATOR Act”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsHarriet Hageman
We hear a lot about sweetheart deals in this committee, and in the case of Hetch Hetchy, one city has received special treatment for more than a century while the rest of California is expected to play by the rules. Representative McClintock's bill is an important step toward correcting this imbalance, supporting public access, and increasing funding for wildfire mitigation activities across California. Finally, H.R. 6869, sponsored by Representative Leger Fernandez, would amend the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act to allow the settlement parties to extend the statutory deadline for completion of the water system authorized in the act. With that, I want to thank the witnesses that are here with us today and the members of the committee for their interest in these important issues, and I yield back. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement.
Val Hoyle
Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thanks to each of our witnesses who traveled to D.C. to be here with us today. Today we're meeting to discuss eight bills that involve access to clean water, invasive species management, manatee habitat, alligators, and finally, tribal water rights. First, we have Representative McClintock's H.R. 177, which would expand public recreation at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in the Lake Eleanor Basin areas of Yosemite National Park. In 1913, the Raker Act authorized San Francisco to construct a dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Today, this reservoir provides high-quality drinking water supply to 2.7 million people in the Bay Area today.
To help protect its drinking water supply, swimming and boating are currently prohibited at the reservoir. While we agree that expanding access is part of keeping our public lands public, we also need to consider the potential impacts of increased recreation on water supplies that serve millions of people. Next, we have three important tribal water rights settlement bills. Tribal leaders joining us today have worked tirelessly to uphold their sovereignty and secure reliable access to water for their communities. These agreements represent major victories for tribal water sovereignty, and I look forward to seeing these agreements get over the finish line.
First, H.R. 5935, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act, introduced by Rep. Calvert, would authorize the tribe's water rights settlement and provide 500 million through the establishment of the Agua Caliente Settlement Trust Fund for water infrastructure and conservation. The tribe has worked with local water districts for years to negotiate this agreement. Second tribal water right bill is Rep. Leger Fernandez's H.R. 6869. This would allow the settlement parties, which include the Pueblo Nambé, Tesuque, and San Ildefonso, and Pojoaque, and the city of Santa Fe and its county, to extend the deadline provided under the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act for completing the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System. The water system will deliver reliable long-term water to the Pueblos and Santa Fe, but water infrastructure projects take time, and we should ensure the projects can be completed despite the delays in construction.
This is a straightforward fix, but an important one to ensure the project can be successful. Then we have the third tribal water right bill, the Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act. H.R. 8546 would make technical changes to the tribe's existing settlement to clarify the lands covered by the settlement and authorize the use of settlement funds to support activities to address water quality issues. Turning now to wildlife and mammal-related bills, H.R. 3717, titled the Golden Mussel Eradication and Control Act, introduced by Rep. Harder, would establish a task force, demonstration program, and grant to help control the golden mussel infestation from Asia.
The golden mussel was discovered in California as recently as October 2025, and in record time, it has become a major threat to the water supply of California's agricultural industry and 27 million Americans. This bill has broad local water agency and county support. It's a good bill. We also will discuss H.R. 10117, the GATOR Act. The bill was introduced by Rep. Steube following the tragic killing of a woman by an American alligator.
The American alligator is protected under U.S. law. This bill would require GAO to evaluate whether Federal Endangered Species Act look-alike listings hinder state management programs' existing authority to remove nuisance alligators from neighborhoods and waterways. Representative Webster's SAFE for Manatees Act would require the Department of Interior to evaluate artificial warm water areas from coastal power generation discharge that manatees use to survive in the cold winter. This prepares for the eventual phase-out or decommissioning of these sites. Finally, H.R. 9017, Representative Donalds' Restore Florida Water Independence Act, would override multiple court decisions and reinstate Florida's state administrative Section 404 wetland permitting program.
This bill would waive the requirement for federal agencies to conduct additional species consultation for wetland construction permits in Florida. This bill would also undermine the Endangered Species Act and give Governor DeSantis a free pass to destroy important habitat for endangered species like the Florida panther. I look forward to the wide-ranging discussion today, and I yield back.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening statement.
Jared Huffman
Thank you, Madam Chair. So we're discussing today legislation that would address water accessibility and wildlife management issues around the country. And first on the agenda, we have my colleague from California and his H.R. 177. Congress has debated the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir for over a century. The Raker Act that created it was enacted in 1913, and today the Hetch Hetchy regional water system provides water and power to the Bay Area.
I have spent my career fighting for public access and recreation opportunities, and we often must balance these needs with other public benefits. I'm open to that conversation. Unfortunately, the National Park Service is not here today to discuss this bill and its impacts or how it might affect existing agreements in place and the trade-offs of some of the sweeping changes that are proposed in this bill. If we want to discuss recreation and public access in and around Yosemite, then let's also talk about the Trump administration's effort to sell off portions of Yosemite National Park to private developers. On one hand, we have Republicans arguing that we need more public access in Yosemite, and on the other, they are trying to sell off parts of it to a private landowner.
It is a contradiction. I mean, we're sitting here debating a bill, or we will be soon, on expanding recreation access on a drinking water reservoir while the Republican administration right now is considering giving a private developer public lands using the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a fund intended to expand public recreation opportunities. And this is on top of Republican efforts to slash the workforce and cut funding to support our national parks. If we want to have a serious conversation about expanding recreation and public access, let's do that. But having enough staff to actually protect our public lands and resources has to be part of that discussion.
Moving to the opposite side of the country, we have the extremely problematic H.R. 9017, Representative Donalds' Restore Florida Independence Act.
This bill is not about states' rights. It is about undermining the Endangered Species Act by codifying a biological opinion that was found to have used bad science. This bill sets a dangerous precedent of overturning court decisions when state programs are out of compliance with our bedrock federal environmental laws. The majority added this language to the chairman's ESA amendments of 2025 earlier this Congress in a last-ditch effort to woo the Florida delegation to support the bill, and it didn't work. In fact, it spectacularly backfired, bringing out more local opposition against the ESA amendments bill and making it impossible for Republicans to even advance the bill on the floor.
That happened in part because Florida communities recognize that this is an attempt to hand corporate special interests a free pass to destroy fragile wetlands and harm endangered wildlife without basic guardrails. Wildlife like the Florida panther, the juvenile sea turtles, and yes, even manatees. I cannot imagine what my colleagues across the aisle were thinking when they decided to hold a hearing today on one hand, a bill to save the manatees, Mr. Webster's HR 9590, and on the other hand, a bill to kill the manatees, Representative Donalds' bill, on the very same day. You've got to pick a side, folks. I'm on the side of manatees, and I'm on the side of sound science and keeping politics out of ESA implementation.
I'm glad to see other legislation on the hearing docket today, such as HR 3717 from Representative Harder, which would advance solutions needed to fight invasive species and maintain water access for communities in California. And I'm very glad to see tribal water rights settlement bills on the agenda. This committee is entrusted with overseeing the government-to-government relationship between the United States and tribal nations, and in this role, advancing tribal water rights settlements is a critical responsibility of ours. Before us are bills for a new settlement for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and amendments to two existing settlements, and I appreciate my colleagues' attention to these bills and for working with us across the aisle to advance tribal water rights settlements wherever we can. I hope to see these and other pending bills before the committee advance to a markup and to the House floor as soon as possible before the clock runs out on this Congress.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Harriet Hageman
I will now introduce our first panel. As is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. I now recognize Congressman McClintock for five minutes.
Tom McClintock
Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, the proposal the ranking member references does not sell off public land. It is for an easement to a tract that is next to the park boundary, but it is a terrible precedent. That I agree with completely. The previous landowner tried to do this about 15 years ago and we stopped him cold, and we are doing the same with this idiotic proposal.
So, gentleman can put his hair out, it's on fire, and relax. Madam Chairman, I thank you for including HR 177 in today's hearing. It is an important matter for my district that includes the Yosemite National Park and the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir that supplies water to about 2.7 million residents in and around the city of San Francisco. The project was made possible through the Raker Act of 1913, which granted the city water rights at the price of $30,000 a year. $30,000.
That figure has never been adjusted. They are still paying $30,000 a year. The city admits that it receives $200 million a year from the water and power sales from this facility. The city makes $200 million, American taxpayers get $30,000 of that from their own national resource. The lake formed by this project is within Yosemite National Park, but includes severe restrictions on public use.
You can't swim in the lake, you can't drive to the lake, you can't camp near the lake. It's essentially off limits to the vast majority of the public for the vast majority of recreational pursuits. This bill does two things. It increases the annual rental fee from $30,000 a year to $2 million a year. Now, that comes to 73 cents a year increase for every user of this water.
73 cents. Although the bill currently requires the city to pay this fee, it's just 1% of the revenues that San Francisco takes in from its water and power users. This $2 million would be retained by Yosemite National Park for firefighting. We have a fire in the park right now, as a matter of fact, and for improvements in the park. But more importantly, this bill would remove many of the severe restrictions on public use at Lake Eleanor.
The Hetch Hetchy Valley was often called the twin sister of the Yosemite Valley. The O'Shaughnessy Dam changed that by turning it into the massive Lake Eleanor with a surface area of one and a half square miles. Now, the original 1864 grant that set Yosemite aside promised that it would be available to the American people for public use, resort, and recreation for all time. But Lake Eleanor breaks that promise. Not only did the American people lose the Hetch Hetchy Valley, they're largely excluded from the use, resort, and recreation at the lake that replaced it.
This bill opens the 960-acre lake to swimming, fishing, camping, picnicking, non-motorized boating, and vehicular access, restoring the promise made to the American people by the Yosemite Grant Act of 1864 and broken by the Raker Act of 1913. Then yes, this will require the city of San Francisco to do additional water treatment, but that's no different than any other water system that uses water from mixed-use recreational lakes. Finally, this bill directs the National Park Service to further examine these issues and determine an equitable cost-sharing and public use program for this valuable national resource. We have Brett Barbara, a director of the Yorba Linda Water District in California, to offer additional background. I'd urge adoption of H.R. 177, and I yield back.
Daniel Webster
Thank you, Madam Chair. Manatees are Florida's most iconic marine mammal and they're core to the character of our state. Decades of conservation efforts have led to a significant recovery in manatee population, a current population of 10,000. However, further vigilance and efforts are necessary to maintain this progress. Manatees are attracted to and depend upon warm water discharged by power plants.
It makes that water warm and they're required to survive in the winter months. As these power plants phase out, warm water discharges, manatees will be left with few options to keep warm. This past winter, a cold shock and a temporary shutdown of a power plant in Lee County, Florida, led to the deaths of 25 manatees.
This event is an unfortunate example of manatees' dependence on warm water habitats generated by discharge from power plants. My bill, H.R. 9590, the SAFE for Manatee Act, directs the Department of Interior, in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, to study potential warm water habitats for manatees and methods of construction. This study would complement the Florida Manatee Warm Water Habitat Action Plan and provide a blueprint for warm water habitat construction efforts. This bill is the first step to maintain the progress in manatee conservation in past decades and to ensure Floridians and tourists that they may enjoy manatees for years to come. I yield back.
Harriet Hageman
I now recognize Congressman Calvert for five minutes.
Thank you, Senator, I mean, excuse me, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Madam Chair, ranking members and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on my bill, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Water Rights Settlement Act, which would ratify and implement a tribal water settlement agreement located in the Coachella Valley. I appreciate you putting this important legislation on today's agenda. It's good to see my friends, Chairman Grubbe and Chairman Macarro, here to testify today. I've been working on California water issues for more than three decades, and in that time I've learned one thing about water fights: they outlast careers.
The only settlements that hold are the ones that the parties agree on together, and that's exactly what we have here: a deliberative, comprehensive water rights settlement agreement that is supported by all local jurisdictions, cities, the state, and the county. That is what's in front of the subcommittee today. Now, how did we get here? In 2013, the Agua Caliente Tribe filed suit against the Coachella Valley Water District and the Desert Water Agency over groundwater rights in the Indio sub-basin. That case ran for more than a decade and could have easily have run for another decade.
Instead, last year, the tribe, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Desert Water Agency signed a settlement agreement. This bill would ratify it. I've been down this road before. I authored the Pechanga Band of Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement enacted in 2016 as part of the WIIN Act, and I've worked with other tribes and water agencies in Riverside County on these questions for far longer than that. Early this year, I joined Mr. Issa in introducing H.R. 8546 to make technical fixes to that same Pechanga settlement, which is also on today's agenda.
These agreements are worth the years they take, that federally recognized tribes like the Agua Caliente can have certainty about the future of their water supply. Very briefly on the substance: the bill qualifies the tribe water right at 20,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater. It authorizes a tribal possessory interest tax that replaces Riverside County's tax with a reservation, but ensures that the schools, the fire districts, and other local agencies that receive revenue today continue to that benefit. It takes roughly 2,742 acres of BLM land into trust with an express prohibition on gaming. It also establishes $500 million in settlement trust fund in four accounts for tribal water projects, which brings me to the real obstacle in front of this bill: the offset.
That 500 million is mandatory spending. It needs an offset, and the first thing that comes to mind is the Judgment Fund.
The second customs fees. Perhaps we can look at both. I look forward to working with this committee, the Interior Department and others to find a path forward. The good news is that the tribe holds title and bears the operation and maintenance costs of the water infrastructure projects it plans to build. 100 million of that total flows back to the district's reimbursed ratepayer funded investments that hold up groundwater levels under the entire valley.
The anti-deficiency provision protects the government, and if the settlement is not consummated by the end of 2035, the act expires and the money comes home. I want to thank Chairman Grubbe and the Agua Caliente Tribal Council. I want to thank the Coachella Valley Water District, the Desert Water Agency, who negotiated in good faith for years to get us here. And I look forward to continuing to advance this bill forward. Again, thank you, I thank the committee for holding this legislative hearing.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Darrell Issa
Thank you, and I now recognize Congressman Issa for five minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member. As my colleague said, except in his case three decades, mine only two plus decades, we have seen a renaissance of the ability of tribes during these decades to self-govern and beyond that to support the maintenance, care, and improvement of federal lands previously not in trust. But along with that come the water rights and as my colleague Mr. Calvert said, the potential disputes. This again, in the case of H.R. 8546, is an example where the tribes working harmoniously with their neighbors have been able to balance their ancestral land needs and wants with the water rights that come with it. This technical correction builds on the 2016 broad settlement that allows for an alignment between the land rights and water rights.
But more importantly, Madam Chair, this is an example, as a colleague who left a little while ago said, of one of those where we're doing all the right things. We're settling disputes, we're returning water rights to the landowners, just as we returned historic land to the historic landowners. In this year in which we're celebrating 250 years, the Pechanga Band of Native American Indians is celebrating something north of many thousands of years. These lands were theirs long before we were a country, and the small amount of their ancestral land that they currently have is in fact an additive to the community. And just two examples.
First of all, every single part of the county and the cities adjacent to this area, the Pechanga reservation, have supported this legislation. Moreover, they are the beneficiary of the fire departments that have been built at the tribe's expense that in fact use that water to protect not just their own land, but the land in the surrounding area. My bill provides greater flexibility for existing water quality account to address water quality issues for Wolf Valley Basin, rather than limiting those funds specifically to groundwater desalination. In my own district in San Diego, the rest of my district, we have a surplus of desalinized water but an inability to pay for it because of the high cost. This flexibility in the bill preserves existing water rights while in fact enhancing the ability for us to find and flow fresh water where it's needed.
So again, I want to thank the chairs that are here that'll be speaking and the long working relationship I've had with the Pechanga Band of Indians.
I also want to thank the chair and those who sat before you and the ranking member. During my 25 years plus, I have seen this committee look at Native American rights in a positive way and make decision after decision, particularly as to BLM and other land in which their efforts have actually transferred to tribes at a savings to the federal government. And there I hope that in the years to come we'll continue to have that bipartisan forward leaning. And with that, I thank the chair and ranking member, yield back.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you, Representative Issa, and I now recognize Congressman Donalds for five minutes.
Byron Donalds
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, H.R. 9017, the Restore Florida's Water Independence Act, it actually allows for critical infrastructure, habitat restoration, and local safety projects to be released from the federal bureaucracy facing delays of 18 months or longer under the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Previously, Florida successfully operated a streamlined one-stop shop permitting program starting in 2020 until a 2024 court ruling halted it over procedural paperwork, not an environmental failure. This legislation works to clear the courtroom hurdle and restore local control. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection already enforces rigorous state environmental standards that overlap with 85% of federal requirements.
Requiring two agencies to do the same duplicative and disjointed review is a waste of time, it's a waste of tax dollars, and it's a waste of resources. And I might add, considering what everybody, what's on the mind of everybody today when it comes to affordability, the extended time of more delays because of the Army Corps having to come in and essentially redo the same work only drives up the cost on these projects, and that cost is borne by the taxpayers and the people of Florida. State controls remove the unnecessary red tape imposed and implemented by Washington and will ensure environmental reviews are faster, more efficient, and conducted in the best interest of Florida. For example, under Florida's program, the city of Jacksonville got the green light for Fire Station 47 in under nine months. Likewise, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection processed the Triple N Ranch wildlife restoration permit in under four months.
Under the current Army Corps permitting timelines, both of these projects could have sat in limbo for years at the expense of Floridians. These are just a couple of instances that demonstrate that state-led oversight gets conservation projects on the ground faster without sacrificing environmental standards. The Restore Florida Water Independence Act implements proven state efficiency, protecting our waters and keeping essential Florida projects moving forward. I will add to commentary that was stated at the beginning of this hearing. Florida, we have, I know how things are in this town, we all know.
But in Florida, protecting our wildlife and our environment is not a partisan issue. We all agree in Florida, Republicans and Democrats, that protecting Florida's environment is critical to the future of our state, critical to the future of our economy, and critical to the future of the protected wildlife within our state, everything from manatees to panthers and all other species in between. Florida, on a bipartisan basis, on a nonpartisan basis, has refused to allow for offshore drilling. Florida, on a nonpartisan basis, has led the way of getting so close to finishing Everglades restoration, something that this town wanted to start almost 25 years ago, Florida has led the way on seeing its completion. And by the way, as the state's next governor, we are going to finish Everglades restoration.
We are protecting our wildlife corridor in the state of Florida to make sure that panthers have room to roam and black bears have room to live. And to the point made about our current governor Ron DeSantis, he has one of the strongest records of environmental protection, actually standing up to big interests in the state of Florida who wanted to cut corners. And it has been Governor DeSantis that has held the line on that measure. When it comes to wildlife and when it comes to environmental protections, we do not take a back seat to anybody in the state of Florida. We are literally a peninsula state where half of our state is in swampland.
If we don't take care of our environment, our state is finished. And I would like to assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when we leave these chambers here in Washington, D.C., in the state capital, at the state level, we take environmental protections incredibly seriously. But what we also take seriously is that when you have our Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which has proven that it knows how to do these projects very well, and you combine that with the regulatory hurdles of the Army Corps of Engineers, which every member of this committee has had to deal with in their states, we all know that is not helping our environment, it actually hurts them. I would ask for members on all sides of this committee to support this common sense legislation. Efficiency in permitting helps our states and helps our communities, and it definitely helps the state of Florida.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you. I want to thank all of the members for your excellent testimony today, and I am now going to introduce our second panel, Mr. Dave Miko, the acting director, deputy director for operations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. Welcome back. We appreciate you being here. And under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the button on the mic, and as you know, we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow, and at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I now recognize Mr. Miko for five minutes.
Dave Miko
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dave Miko and I am the acting deputy director for operations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on four bills. H.R. 9017 would deem the service's 2020 biological opinion regarding the EPA's approval of Florida's request to assume administration of the dredge and fill permitting program under section 404 of the Clean Water Act in compliance under the biological opinion as compliant with the Endangered Species Act. The bill would also preclude additional section 7 consultations.
As a consequence of pending litigation, I am unable to further comment on this bill at this time. H.R. 9590 would require the service to conduct a study on warm water habitat for manatees that are currently utilizing areas in Florida around coastal industrial sites subject to decommissioning actions. The study would identify and assess natural warm water locations and ones where artificial warm water refugia could be constructed in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers and the state of Florida. The federally protected manatee is a cold-intolerant species. Colder water temperatures contribute to cold stress syndrome and mass mortality events.
The loss of warm water refugia is a key threat to the species. This study could assist in identifying natural and artificial sites to help sustain manatee populations. The department supports the intent of H.R. 9590 and would like to work with the subcommittee on technical recommendations to support implementation. H.R. 10117 would direct the GAO in consultation with the service and states to complete a study regarding similarity of appearance for treatment under the ESA for the American alligator, common caiman, and brown caiman, and potential effects on their populations and state management.
Under section 4E, the service may limit the take of an unlisted species if it so closely resembles a listed species that law enforcement personnel would have difficulty distinguishing between them in enforcing the ESA. The American alligator was recovered in 1987 but has 4E treatment due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile. Under the 4E rule, the state rather than the service regulates take, including lethal removal. The two caiman have 4E treatment due to similarity of appearance to the yacare caiman. This 4E rule allows for different types of management activities by the state of Florida.
The service works closely with the state to ensure that they have the flexibility and tools to meet their management goals and to protect human safety. We support the intent of HR 10117 and welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee to provide technical recommendations. HR 3717 would require the aquatic nuisance species task force to establish a demonstration program initially in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to prevent, monitor, control, and eradicate invasive golden mussels. It would also establish a grant program to identify methods to control or remove golden mussels and understand their biology. The service works closely with partners to combat golden mussels.
Last summer, we convened a workgroup to evaluate immediate and long-term needs. The workgroup is developing a national control and management plan to guide and coordinate efforts. In January 2025, the service published a proposed rule that would add golden mussels to the list of injurious wildlife. The service recognizes the importance of addressing invasive species and supports the goals of HR 3717. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Harriet Hageman
I want to thank you for your testimony. I am now going to recognize the members for five minutes each for questions, and I'm going to start with myself. Mr. Miko, in light of what Mr. Donalds is trying to accomplish with his legislation, what steps is the service taking to partner with other agencies and states to better coordinate and facilitate the simplification of the federal permitting process?
Dave Miko
I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. We're working in alignment with the administration's priorities to really writ large reduce environmental review, working as well with under the executive orders and secretary orders to streamline consultation under section 7 and section 9 in collaboration with other federal agencies, state partners, and NGOs and understanding their needs for efficient and effective environmental review.
Harriet Hageman
Okay. How important is it for the service to engage constructively with all conservation partners, including industry, to ensure the conservation of the manatee continues to be a success for decades to come?
Dave Miko
I appreciate the question on manatee. Manatee are an iconic species to Florida, and it is vital, it takes a village right to to support these species, iconic species. And in Florida, the manatee is, as we heard earlier, is a cold water intolerance species, requiring a warm water habitat. And in fact, 60% of the Florida manatee population is dependent on industry discharges for that warm water refugia that they require. So working with industry in particular and our partners at large with within state and NGOs to understand opportunities for us to potentially relocate or provide additional warm water refugia is vitally important and understanding as industry may need to decommission sites, the timing of that so we can help those manatee that depend on those warm water sites to find new refugia in the future.
Harriet Hageman
Okay. My last question is, in light of the tragic incident that happened to Mr. Steube's constituent earlier this year, is the service taking steps to work better with state agencies to deal with nuisance alligators?
Dave Miko
Appreciate the question and it's difficult, obviously, the tragedy that occurred and we want to extend the service, the department wants to extend our deepest sympathies to Mrs. Clark's loved ones in that tragic event. The service does work closely with all states that have alligators in their state boundaries and Florida to help address nuisance alligators. The state of Florida has a wonderful program, the SNAP program, Statewide Nuisance Alligator Program Removal, that provides a hotline for citizens to call when they feel threatened, either personally, for their pets, their property, so they can call. The state maintains contractors, skilled contractors to come and remove those alligators. The 4E rule provides quite a bit of flexibility for states and in fact allows the states to manage alligator populations as they see most appropriate, being the folks on the ground and the experts locally to understand the impacts of alligators in Florida.
Val Hoyle
Okay. Thank you, and I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Hoyle, for five minutes of questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mico, thanks for joining us today again to discuss these very important issues. Look, every time you've come before us to testify, we've asked you about the status of delaying grants, including grants to help communities manage invasive species, and those are really, really urgent actions that need to be taken. For example, my district's battling the quagga mussel discovered on the shoreline of the Prineville Reservoir this summer, and this kind of discovery, as I said, requires a rapid response and manpower often funded through the federal Fish and Wildlife grants. So could you please tell us today what progress your agency has made in delivering these grants and what steps you've taken to make this process more transparent and efficient?
Dave Miko
Sure. I appreciate the question and we certainly support and understand the importance of mitigating the impacts of aquatic invasive species. We're working closely with the department and within the service to understand that the grant applications that we receive are in line with presidential and administration priorities and being the best use of American taxpayer dollars.
Val Hoyle
So could you tell me what you're going to do to make the process more efficient and transparent so that we're not in the dark while these grants, critical grants, get held up?
Dave Miko
Again, appreciate the follow-up and as I mentioned, we're working closely with the department to make sure these grants align with administration priorities and we'd be happy to follow up with you in your office with further details if requested.
Val Hoyle
Yeah, what I would like is a response in writing about status of grants. I mean, for me, it's particularly in Oregon, but we have a number of grants throughout districts on critical invasive species that if we don't get on this right away, it's incredibly problematic. So I just would like a response in writing as to what the status is, and we've asked for that a number of times. Would really appreciate that. Now, as you know, according to the recent federal data, the number of US Fish and Wildlife Service staff has dropped by 3,600 during the president's second term.
The West Coast and Oregon in particular have seen some of the steepest and most unfortunate losses.
For example, about 95 scientists of the 1,900 nationwide were cut from the service and worked in our coastal cities and from La Grande to Roseburg to Bend to Portland. In Oregon alone, the number of Fish and Wildlife employees is down 40% since 2024. And these are full-time seasonal employees that fuel Oregon's economy, help keep our local ecosystems healthy, whether it's recreational fishing, our commercial fishing industry, our ocean and river ecosystems. It's absolutely critical work. And these scientists, the loss of experience and knowledge has been significant.
So how is the service expected to carry out its mission to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife when we're losing the expertise needed to truly protect endangered plants and animals? And the people that are left have, they're overworked and the morale is bad because they don't know when the axe is coming. And the fed, this administration and the federal government has openly said that their focus is to make federal employees fear coming to work. So how do we address that?
Dave Miko
I appreciate the question. And as you pointed out, we have had a number of staff leave through voluntary opportunities since the beginning of the administration. They've not left in a manner that was consistent across the country. As you pointed out, we've got departures that may have been larger in one region and or larger in one program than the other. As a service, we are focusing our hiring processes to be field-focused to meet the needs and priorities of the administration and the American public where we're finding those current deficiencies, whether it's a refuge, whether it's a hatchery, or in our ESA listing program, but focusing our hiring efforts in those places that we're finding have the highest, highest need.
Harriet Hageman
Okay. Well, if I could get something in writing specifically to how you're going to address the staffing shortages and replacing that experience and knowledge in the Pacific Northwest, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. And I want to thank you, Mr. Miko, for being here today and for your testimony and for the questions that were asked. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witness, and we will ask for you to respond to those in writing.
And while the clerk is resetting the table, I will introduce the witnesses to our third panel for today. The Honorable Jeff Grubbe, Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs, California. The Honorable Mark Macarro, Chairman of the Pechanga Band of Indians in Temecula, California. The Honorable Christopher Moquino, Governor of the San Ildefonso Pueblo in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And the Honorable Brett Barbre, Director of the Yorba Linda Water District in Yorba Linda, California.
Mr. Mike Sole, the Vice President of Environmental Services for NextEra Energy in Juno Beach, Florida. The Honorable George Roberts, the Board Chair of the Northwest Florida Water Management District in Havana, Florida. Ms. Amber Crooks, the Senior Environmental Policy Advisor at the Conservancy of Southwest Florida in Naples, Florida.
And Mr. John Truitt, the Deputy Secretary of Regulatory Programs for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Tallahassee, Florida. Under committee rules, you must submit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone. And again, we are using timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green.
When you have one minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. I now recognize Chairman Grubbe for five minutes.
Jeff Grubbe
Achama-tullika. Good morning, Chair Hageman and Ranking Member Hoyle and honorable members of this committee. My name is Jeff Grubbe and I am Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of my tribe's water settlement legislation, H.R. 5935. We'd like to thank the congressional representatives of our reservation, Mr. Calvert, for introducing this historic legislation, and Mr. Ruiz for co-sponsoring.
The bill secures a water supply for Agua Caliente and strengthens tribal self-sufficiency and water security for the Agua Caliente and the entire Coachella Valley. For millennia, my tribe has inhabited land in and around Palm Springs, California. Our reservation is a checkerboard pattern with reservation trust lands mixed with non-Indian fee land. Today, our reservation is 34,000 acres and includes large portions of the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage. The tribe and non-Indian community rely on the same groundwater supply.
In the Coachella Valley, surface water is scarce and almost all water consumption comes from the aquifer. With annual groundwater pumping far exceeding the aquifer's ability to recharge naturally, water levels in upper valley wells dropped 50 to 100 feet between the 50s and 70s, substantially increasing the cost of accessing water. We estimate the loss of 174,000 acre-feet of groundwater in storage beneath the reservation lands between 1936 and 2009. To protect the tribe's water, in 2013, Agua Caliente filed a lawsuit against two local water districts who deliver water to the reservation: Coachella Valley Water District and Desert Water Agency. In 2017, Agua Caliente obtained a landmark ruling that tribes have federal reserved rights to groundwater.
Five years later, the tribe, the water districts, and the United States reached a settlement. That comprehensive agreement is now before Congress. It quantifies Agua Caliente's water right of 20,000 acre-feet per year with a priority date no later than the executive orders establishing the reservation. The tribe will be exempt from fees the water districts charge for pumping of groundwater. Instead, the tribe itself will charge a fee to fund its water-related projects.
The water districts will deliver the tribe's water to customers on the reservation, collect the tribal fee from customers, and remit the fee to the tribe. A memorandum of cooperation between Agua Caliente and the water districts details the tribe's active involvement in management of the groundwater. The settlement will replace Riverside County's property tax on possessory interest on reservation trust lands with a tribal possessory interest tax. Proceeds will fund tribal water projects and activities while preserving current allocations for non-tribal public agencies. This agreement is a unique solution for Agua Caliente and the Coachella Valley.
It will not set a precedent as no other tribal reservation exists with similar circumstances.
And 50 million for operation maintenance replacement costs for the water projects funded by the settlement. HR 5935 not only confirms Agua Caliente's federal reserved water right, it ensures we all have an active government role in the Coachella Valley groundwater planning and management through our own water agency for the first time in our history. This settlement provides increased water stability for all valley residents and is supported by the water districts and all affected local governments including Riverside County and the state of California. On behalf of the Agua Caliente, I respectfully request that this Congress pass the Agua Caliente Water Rights Settlement Act as soon as possible. Achama, thank you.
Mark Macarro
Miiyuya, Pulaavum 'Ay'nay. Good morning, chair, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Mark Macarro and I serve as the chairman of the Pechanga Band of Indians in Southern California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of HR 8546, the Pechanga Band of Indians Water Rights Settlement Technical Amendments Act. Before I discuss the bill, I'd like to take just a moment to explain why this legislation is so important to my tribe.
For the Pechanga people, water is not simply a natural resource, water is our identity. Our ancestors have lived in what is now the Temecula Valley since time immemorial and in fact, it is the place of our creation. 151 years ago, almost to date, after our people were forcibly removed from our ancestral village by armed eviction, they rebuilt their community around a small spring in the rocks in the hills nearby about three miles away. That spring is known as Pechaa, and it means the place where water drips. It gave our tribe life then, 151 years ago, and during one of the darkest chapters in our tribe's history.
It also gave our tribe its name, Pechanga, at the place where water drips. So today, that same connection to water continues to define who we are. We have a responsibility to protect it not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, and generations of Pechanga people who will come along after we are gone. So that responsibility is what brings me here today. I'd like to thank Representatives Issa and Calvert, for Issa for introducing this legislation and Mr. Calvert for joining as an original co-sponsor.
Congressman Issa has been truly a partner to Pechanga during his entire tenure in the House. We wish him well in his retirement. We also appreciate our friendship with Congressman Calvert and look forward to our continued work with him. They have our gratitude for their leadership and continued commitment to honoring the promises Congress made when it approved the Pechanga water settlement. So after decades of litigation and negotiation, Congress enacted our water settlement in 2016.
It was the product of years of collaboration between Pechanga, neighboring water districts, and the United States. It recognized our federally reserved water rights, resolving long-standing disputes and established a cooperative framework for protecting water resources throughout the Santa Margarita River watershed. Nearly 10 years later, that settlement is working. But as often happens with legislation implementing complex Indian water settlements, practical experience has revealed two narrow technical issues that should be corrected so the settlement can function exactly as Congress intended. These amendments are not controversial.
They have been developed collaboratively with the Rancho California Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. All of these are settlement partners and they support HR 8546. The first amendment updates the definition of the reservation to ensure that Pechanga can use its existing tribal water right on contiguous trust lands within the Santa Margarita River watershed that have been or may later be taken into trust.
This amendment does not increase our water right. No additional water is required. It simply ensures that the water right that is in the settlement that Congress has already recognized can be used on the reservation as it exists today. And two, the second amendment updates the authorized uses of the Pechanga water quality account. When the settlement was negotiated, the primary concern was salinity.
Today, communities across the country face new water quality challenges challenges that were not envisioned even 10 years ago, including contaminants such as PFAS. This amendment simply provides the flexibility to use those existing settlement funds to respond to today's water quality issues rather than limiting those funds to a single purpose envisioned a decade ago. Again, this amendment requires no new federal funding. It simply allows existing funds to be used more effectively to protect water resources. HR 8546 contains two changes that are truly technical amendments to our original water settlement legislation.
It does not reopen our settlement. It does not alter the negotiated balance amongst the parties. It does not expand our water rights and it does not require additional appropriations. Instead, it honors the agreement Congress approved in 2016 by ensuring that the settlement can continue to serve the purposes Congress intended for Pechanga, for our neighboring water agencies, and for future generations. On behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians, I respectfully ask the subcommittee to approve HR 8546 and advance it to the full Committee on Natural Resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions. Lóvó'm.
Thank you. I will now recognize Congresswoman Leger Fernandez to introduce Governor Moquino.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, ranking member. I want to welcome Governor Christopher Moquino of San Ildefonso Pueblo in New Mexico. In Tewa, the pueblo is called P'ohwhogeh Ówîngge, which means where the water cuts through. Today, though, there is just not enough water. So I look forward to hearing from Governor Moquino about how we can make sure that the Aamodt settlement, which addressed the water rights of both the tribal and non-tribal members of the region, how we can make sure that it succeeds so that the San Ildefonso, Nambé, Pojoaque, and Tesuque Pueblos will have access to these life-giving waters.
Governor Moquino.
Speaker 26
I now recognize Governor Moquino for five minutes.
Kuup'i-ak-indi, mawa-te-mu-te-ki. Good morning and respectfully, chair, ranking member, and members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. I am Christopher Moquino, Governor of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in strong support of HR 6869, legislation to amend the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act to extend certain dates for completion of the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System. I submit this testimony in support of the shared interests of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, the Pueblo of Nambé, the Pueblo of Pojoaque, the Pueblo of Tesuque, and Santa Fe County.
Together, these five New Mexico partners will benefit from, own, and operate the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.
Christopher Moquino
The Regional Water System is the centerpiece of the settlement of a long-running Aamodt water rights litigation and is essential to fulfilling the intent and purposes of the federal settlement legislation. Construction of the Regional Water System is progressing, but increased costs and remaining funding challenges require a practical and carefully sequenced approach. The Pueblos and Santa Fe County have worked closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to address these challenges and to support a revised contracting and construction strategy. That strategy is designed to bring the system into operation as efficiently and economically as possible, allow it to begin serving customers and generating revenues, and permit additional distribution lines and related features to be added as funding becomes available. To implement this practical strategy, Reclamation has had to redesign certain aspects of the system and revise its contracting plan.
Those necessary adjustments have extended the projected completion timeline into 2030. The Pueblos and Santa Fe County support that schedule because it provides the most feasible path for bringing the Regional Water System into operation as soon as possible while preserving the benefits Congress intended through the settlement. A legal obstacle now stands in the way of that practical approach. Section 623(e) of the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act, as amended in 2021, allows one or more Pueblos to petition the decree court to void the settlement if the Secretary of Interior determines the system cannot be substantially completed by June 30, 2028. While none of the Pueblos want construction to cease while funding remains available, the Department of Interior has interpreted the 2028 as a hard cut-off for construction activity on the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.
This interpretation would halt work on remaining funds, design cost savings, or project efficiencies. H.R. 6869 would address this problem by amending Section 623(g). The bill permits the extension of the subsection (e) dates if the Pueblos, the state, the city, the county, and the United States acting through the Secretary mutually agree it is reasonably necessary. This narrow technical amendment does not reopen the settlement, alter substantive rights, or impose new costs on the United States. Instead, it simply allows all settlement parties to align the construction timeline with current construction realities and logistics.
Passing this legislation is necessary to remove any artificial barrier to the project's completion, ensuring that Regional Water System can finally deliver its intended benefits to the Pueblo, Santa Fe County, and surrounding communities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the House Subcommittee and ultimately the House Committee on Natural Resources to act favorably on this legislation and support its prompt passage. We appreciate the continued support for the Aamodt settlement and the completion of the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System. Thank you for this opportunity.
Brett Barbre
Thank you very much, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, members of the distinguished subcommittee. My name is Brett Barbree. I'm a director of the Yorba Linda Water District in Southern California.
Speaker 39
We serve approximately 73,000 customers. We're known nationally for the construction of the nation's largest PFAS water treatment plant, which we were forced to do because of PFAS contamination in our groundwater basin. We're also known for the development of heli-hydrants, which are necessary in a high-fire area. And these are game-changing technologies that allow fire-fighting helicopters to tap fresh and unlimited supplies of water during fires. And in recent years, it's cut turn time down by 50%.
And in the last five months, we've stopped three wildfires from getting out of control. Also, in the northwest hills of Yorba Linda is the sixth largest water treatment plant in the United States, the Robert B. Diemer Water Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. They treat both imported water from Colorado River and from the State Water Project. Previously, I served 20 years on the board of the Municipal Water District of Orange County and 11 years as a director at Metropolitan. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, share a few thoughts regarding Mr. McClintock's H.R. 177, the Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act.
As a native Californian, I believe Yosemite is one of the most breathtaking national parks in our nation. Visitors from all over the world venture to what John Muir referred to as the living temple of nature. And it's a natural resource to be protected. When the City and County of San Francisco approached the United States in order to obtain the right to build the O'Shaughnessy Dam and develop the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, there was an expected mutual benefit to the citizens of the United States, which granted that right through the approval of the Raker Act. Unfortunately, the imbalance between the beneficiaries of the water and power from Hetch Hetchy and the citizens of this country is noted in several sections of Mr. McClintock's bill.
The amendment to Section 2 of the Raker Act recognizes that charging an annual fee for the right to use the water of $30,000 based on a 1913 price. Everything has gone up since then. The new sum of $2 million is more than reasonable, and including a CPI adjustment for the future is fair. The amendment to Section 12 of the Raker Act adds a recreation benefit that is consistent with every other major reservoir in California and the West. Historically, dams in California and the West provide four benefits.
They provide water storage, flood control, power generation, and importantly, recreation. Of the major water projects constructed in California, they all have those benefits provided. Hoover Dam was the first major project that allowed Southern California to build the Colorado River Aqueduct, creating Lake Mead, large storage facility, but also provided power generation and significant recreational benefits. 1939 is when Metropolitan was allowed to construct Parker Dam with the Bureau of Reclamation, which created Lake Havasu, 646,000 acre-feet, full-body contact recreational boating, power generation is another benefit. Central Valley Project, which provides needed water for our agricultural community.
Shasta Dam is the largest facility, which should be increased in size, by the way. They also allow full-body contact and recreation. And then finally, the State Water Project, which was completed in 1973. One of the requirements is that there be recreational activities on all of those.
Hetch Hetchy should be treated no better, no worse than any other system that provides benefits to our fellow citizens. Though Hetch Hetchy was paid for entirely by the taxpayers of the city and county of San Francisco, it's reasonable to annually reimburse the nation for the use of the resources. That was included in the original bill and should be adjusted to take into consideration the increase since 1913. The addition of allowing minimal recreational activities on the reservoir is also consistent with every other major system throughout California and the Colorado River system. The lack of recreation on the system removes the necessity to comply with certain water quality standards.
We should all be treated the same. This concludes my statement and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Mike Sole
Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. Florida manatees depend on warm water habitat to survive winter cold periods. Historically, they relied primarily on natural springs. However, over the past century, human activities such as navigational improvements, water management projects, and other coastal development have restricted access to many of these springs, altering the availability and use of these natural warm water refuges. At the same time, industrial facilities including power plants created new warm water discharges that became important winter refuges for manatees and played a significant role in the species recovery and range expansion.
Today, as Florida's energy infrastructure continues to evolve, we have a responsibility to understand how future changes may affect the availability of this warm water habitat. FPL supports the SAFE for Manatees Act because it advances a proactive, science-based approach to this challenge. The bill will help evaluate alternative warm water habitats and provide information necessary for long-term conservation planning. Importantly, it complements the ongoing work already being conducted by state and federal agencies, utilities, researchers, and conservation organizations through the Warm Water Habitat Action Plan. By studying these issues now, we can better ensure that future generations of manatees continue to have access to warm water habitat and thrive.
Thank you.
George Roberts
Sorry, ma'am. My name is George Roberts and I am the governing board chair of the Northwest Florida Water Management District. I'm also co-owner and vice president of Roberts and Roberts Inc., a heavy highway construction company, and president of the Bay County Contractors Association. I'm also a past chairman of the board of the Florida Transportation Builders Association and a member of the Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida. I would like to thank Chair Hageman and the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of HR 9017, the Restore Florida Water Independence Act of 2026.
I'd especially like to thank Congressman Byron Donalds for introducing this bipartisan legislation, Committee Member Webster for co-sponsoring this bill, and the members of the Florida delegation who also have joined as co-sponsors. I would like to acknowledge my executive director for the Northwest Florida Water Management, Mr. Lyle Seigler, who is here today.
The district is one of five regional water management districts for Florida and is responsible for managing and protecting water resources across 16 counties. The district works every day with local government, state and federal partners to protect Northwest Florida water resources while supporting the region. HR 9017 would provide a clear statutory path for Florida to resume administration of the Section 404 permitting program. For Northwest Florida, this is about ensuring the decisions that affect our communities, business, water resources are made efficiently with and throughout understanding of our local conditions and resources that are intended to protect. I've spent more than four decades as part of the people, business and organizations that make Northwest Florida my home.
I've seen firsthand how permitting decisions affect our communities, not just from a policy perspective, but from job sites and the course of everyday life. As a contractor, I've known that a permitting delay is not just simply a date on a calendar. A delay can leave a project on hold for many days, crews waiting, costs accumulating and communities waiting for infrastructure that is needed in the state of Florida. Those impacts are efficiently sufficient in a growing region like Northwest Florida, where communities are investing in roads, utilities, housing, stormwater infrastructure, economic development and other projects that require responsibilities on timely environmental reviews. Florida demands that it could do both when it's administrating Section 404 program during the three-year period.
More than 400 environmental resource permits were issued in Northwest Florida that also received the 404 authorization. This experience demonstrates the value of having environmental protection working with an existing regulatory framework and aligning the water management districts that already understand Florida's unique hydrology, wetland and unique resources. Florida's prior administration of the 404 program demonstrates that environmental protection and regulatory efficiency do not have to be competing options. A state-administered program can maintain the federal standards required under the Clean Water Act while bringing permitting discussions closer to the communities, resource and professionals most familiar with Florida's environment. Before Florida assumed the program, the DEP estimated that the federal Section 404 and the state environmental resource permit requirements overlapped approximately 85% of the time.
EPA has likewise recognized that the state assumption can reduce duplication and allow permitting responsibilities to be integrated with existing state environmental programs. Legislation's not about reducing environmental protection, it is about ensuring that Florida has the ability to administer these protections through the state and regional professionals who understand Florida's resources, its communities and the projects that support its economic. Thank you, Chair, for and the members on the committee for the opportunity to testify today, and also want to thank Congressman Donalds for introducing this legislation and working to address importance issues for Florida. Thank you.
Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Crooks for five minutes.
Amber Crooks
Yes, good morning, Chairwoman and Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today regarding HR 9017, the Restore Florida Water Independence Act of 2026. I am Amber Crooks, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, a nonprofit environmental organization based in Naples.
The Conservancy was established in 1964 in its fight to protect Rookery Bay, one of the few remaining undisturbed mangrove estuaries in North America, from development which threatened our sensitive wetland coastline. Today, our focus has grown and we advocate to preserve the water, wildlife, and landscapes that make Southwest Florida unlike anywhere else in the world. We work in five counties across four congressional districts with people of all ages from different backgrounds and professions, and often with different politics, but all united for their appreciation for and love of Southwest Florida's natural treasures. Through my nearly 20-year tenure with the Conservancy, I have seen how our region, and indeed the state of Florida, has been changing due to the persistent threats of reckless and rampant development. If H.R. 9017 were to pass, we are concerned that our mission to preserve our natural heritage and ensure a future quality of life for our communities will be increasingly at risk.
In late 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rushed to approve Florida's Clean Water Act permitting authority application, also known as Section 404 permitting. One of the requirements for this process is that the federal agencies conduct an Endangered Species Act analysis, looking at how this major federal action would impact species from the Panhandle to the Florida Keys. In conducting this analysis, EPA relied on a Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion that lacked the necessary and legally required components. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to evaluate potential impacts from future permits on protected species, including the extent of injury or death on species like the manatee we've heard a lot about today, Key deer, Florida panther, and over 100 other species. But even so, the biological opinion concluded that no jeopardy was likely for any of those species.
And what's more, the opinion then unlawfully extended broad liability coverage to future permittees and to Florida into perpetuity with no guardrails or backstops, such as identifying a limit on the amount of protected species that could be injured or killed before U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must reinitiate its consultation. This was essentially a free pass for development, and the U.S. EPA was okay with that. All of these shortcomings are why this biological opinion was found to violate the Endangered Species Act by two courts of law, and this is the same biological opinion that this proposed legislation would now decree is now suddenly legal and completely adequate for Endangered Species Act compliance. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida has long established that our advocacy positions are science-based, balanced, and solutions-oriented. We're not anti-development.
But we remain committed to our now eight-year effort to ensure that the destruction of Florida's wildlife and wetlands are not hastened by the state's improper program. Florida's endangered species deserve the same protections as in any other state. Our unique and exceptionally valuable wildlife require the maximum protections available, not a reduction, which is the apparent aim of this legislation. From Florida's coastlines to our rivers and lakes, from the first-magnitude springs to the slow-moving river of grass and cypress swamps of America's Everglades, our water support a global biodiversity hotspot.
Waters and wildlife define our most iconic landscapes and public trust lands. This bill is simply a risk that Florida cannot take. And that is why we are encouraging the members of this committee to oppose this legislation. Thank you, and I'll be happy to take your questions.
John Truitt
Thank you, Chair, members of the subcommittee. My name is John Truitt, I'm the Deputy Secretary for Regulatory Programs at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I'm honored to address this subcommittee concerning H.R. 9017, the Restore Florida Water Independence Act of 2026. This bipartisan legislation represents a vital and responsible step forward in restoring DEP's Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. Florida successfully administered the program for several years prior to the adverse court ruling that jeopardizes the ability of Florida and all other states with significant wetlands and endangered species to administer the program as Congress intended.
At the outset, the DEP wishes to express our gratitude to Representative Byron Donalds for introducing H.R. 9017 and for his leadership on this important issue for the state of Florida. Although the Corps of Engineers is the default authority for issuing Section 404 permits, the Clean Water Act allows states to assume the program subject to ongoing federal oversight. The approach, based on the fundamental principle of cooperative federalism, which is reflected in the Clean Water Act, provides greater certainty to the regulated community, conserves resources of the applicant and the regulator, and affords states greater control over their own natural resources while complying with federal law. In fact, the Clean Water Act expresses Congress's preference for state administration of all of its permitting programs. Specifically, when Congress enacted Section 404, it declared it the policy of Congress that the states implement the permit programs under the Clean Water Act.
In 1977, Congress created a process by which a state may assume Section 404. Florida accepted this and spent many years and significant resources building our Section 404 program in partnership with the federal government to achieve assumption of that program in December of 2020. The state assumption does require compliance with numerous federal requirements, including the Endangered Species Act. Under the Endangered Species Act, and as part of EPA's review of our Section 404 program, the EPA consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the consultation resulted in a programmatic biological opinion, or BiOp, incidental take statement, ITS, and a technical assistance process that the lower D.C. Circuit Court had overturned. However, I do want to stress the programmatic BiOp, incidental take statement, and technical assistance process was not invented during our consultation.
Instead, we copied the process used by the EPA during the Obama administration in an analogous context involving cooling water intake permits, also under the Clean Water Act, issued by state agencies in at least 46 other states. That program used federal-state coordination and technical assistance, used a programmatic ITS, and a unanimous Second Circuit panel upheld that consultation process and the BiOp and ITS. Importantly, the programmatic BiOp, ITS, and technical assistant process in that instance that we modeled off of was defended by the Obama administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden administration, and now the second Trump administration, and has been endorsed in the cooling water case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit disagreed with those administrations and the Second Circuit and vacated Florida's program. While we do continue to pursue relief from the courts, Congress does have the constitutional authority to restore Florida's Section 404 robust ESA protections on its own accord.
This straightforward legislation endorses the approach adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in cooling water and the prior four administrations, which reflects the view of harmonizing the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. H.R. 9017, sponsored by Representative Byron Donalds, would do just that. By codifying that Florida's Section 404's programmatic BiOp is deemed to be compliant with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and no additional consultation is required.
Doing so would help to end the protracted litigation and allow DEP to get back to our important work of administering the Section 404 permit program in coordination with our already existing state environmental resource permit program. We applaud the work of the subcommittee, Representative Donalds, and the bipartisan cosponsors of this important legislative proposal. Stand ready to offer technical assistance to the subcommittee as you consider the legislation. Again, thank you for your time.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today. Before we go on to questioning, there's just a few points that I would like to make here. First of all, this is the largest panel that I have ever witnessed in this room. And so we usually have two, three, four, the most I think I've seen is five, and today we have eight. And part of that is we really are trying to move some bills forward.
I know that for many of the members of this committee, the members of the subcommittee, and many of the members who are not even on this subcommittee or on the committee at all who came today want to move these bills forward because they are important to them. And so we are working to try to get as many bills moved forward. You don't see a lot of people up here, a lot of members here today, and that is because we have other hearings that are going on as well. So I just want the witnesses to understand how important it is for you to come and participate with us, give us your insight, give us the information, make sure that we follow the process that is necessary for us to be able to move bills forward. But I don't want you to feel badly if you don't get questions necessarily or if you think that there are not that you see that there are not people here.
I just had to leave a moment ago to go over to another committee because we're doing markups over there and I have to leave to go and vote. So again, I really want to thank you for being here, providing the information, and especially for many of the the members who are not members of this committee but have bills before us that are important to them and their constituents. So with that, we are going to move into questions. And I'm going to start with myself, and I have several questions for you. Chairman Grubbe, I'd like to start with you.
And as you noted in your testimony, the Agua Caliente tribe has spent years litigating and negotiating its water rights, and this settlement before us today represents a negotiated resolution between the tribe, the water districts, and the federal government. Can you explain why achieving finality and certainty through this settlement is so important for the tribe and for the broader Coachella Valley?
Jeff Grubbe
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that question and it is an important question. And I know in my opening statement I outlined, you know, some of the benefits of of this settlement and what it means. And and Congressman Calvert did as well. But I want to focus while answering your question, I want to focus on what the negative parts is of it if it doesn't happen.
And I think it's important that we do achieve a finality and certainty because the only alternative would be a general groundwater adjudication in the basin among all groundwater pumpers. A basin adjudication would be very disruptive. It would take decades to complete, result in waste of resources for everyone in the Coachella Valley, and build a contentious relationship among our neighbors. It would also inevitably result in the tribe being quantified most of the groundwater in the basin as we are the largest groundwater, largest landowners and with the most senior water right based on the date of the establishment of our reservation. This settlement is far less expensive and it does not disturb or is not disruptive to the water districts or any of the ratepayers in the Coachella Valley.
It also ensures that the tribe benefits from having its water rights quantified and maintains the status quo for all valley residents.
Harriet Hageman
So, is the state of California contributing any resources related to this settlement agreement?
Jeff Grubbe
There is a, there is a portion of funds that they are contributing. I think it was 10 million, I could be wrong, but we can get that to you so it's, so the number's accurate, but they are contributing and they have been supportive and and we, they view it as an opportunity to work because the state of California has water issues, right?
Boy howdy.
Harriet Hageman
Well, and I'll just make a commitment to you, I want to help California address its water issues, whether it's this particular agreement or its others, but California is going to have to get its house in order when it comes to water and providing water for its, its citizens and so I'm committed to helping with that. But California needs to step up as well. Just one more question, why is it important that the settlement's definition of the reservation keep pace with the tribe's current and future lands?
Speaker 24
Oh, I'm sorry, that is for Mr. Macarro, that's right, that is correct. Excuse me. I can't read.
Harriet Hageman
Take your shot at it. No, Mr. Macarro, Chairman Macarro, if you could address that please.
Could you repeat the question please?
Mark Macarro
Yes, why is it important that the settlement, that your settlement's definition of the reservation keep pace with the tribe's current and future lands?
Okay, thanks for that question. So, fundamentally this is about the tribe's ongoing effort to restore and reconnect our historic homeland, our land base, and provide for future generations of our people. Like many tribes, Pechanga's worked for generations to rebuild our land base through having lost that through the progression of the Spanish and then Mexico and then westward expansion. So, we have been doing that through land transfers, through the federal trust acquisition process, through purchasing land back contiguous with our reservation. For example, in 1988 our land base was 4,900 acres total.
And today it's almost 8,000. And so, slowly we've been acquiring contiguous land and parcel either through transfers like I said or through purchase. The problem is is the definition of of land in the original settlement in 2016 has a static picture of the land base that that it's tied to. And so, well let me say it this way, after Congress passed our water settlement in 2016, Pechanga put lands into trust along our northern boundary of the reservation to provide tribal housing for our tribal members. Under the current definition, technically we're not able to use our water on that that more recently acquired lands.
So, amending the definition would allow us to any lands that are transferred into trust that are contiguous with our current reservation at any point in time into the future will fit the definition.
Harriet Hageman
Yeah, like in Wyoming the water is tied with the definition or with the the land. So I I now understand that. I am essentially out of time, so I'm going to call on the ranking member for her five minutes of questioning. Oh, Ms. Leger Fernandez, okay. Ms. Leger Fernandez for five minutes of questioning.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you. And thank you to all our witnesses. I think that, you know, those of us who live in the West and now I think across the country understand the importance of coming to agreement on these water rights settlement and making sure that every drop of wet water, you know, the kind that actually irrigates the crops and feeds our families, quenches our thirst is available. And I really want to recognize the manner in which the Indian water rights settlements have always been about collaboration, so that it's not just the tribal beneficiaries, but it is the communities surrounding them, it is the counties, it is the state, it is the non-Indian water rights users who benefit.
And Governor Moquino, I am struck by the fact that the Aamodt settlement was originally begun as a lawsuit in 1966. And here we are in 2026, still working on getting resolution. You came before us today to talk about the interests of both the Pueblos and Santa Fe County. Can you talk to us a little bit about why it's important to have this amendment so that the people who are impacted by the settlement can come to agreement on how to make sure we complete the infrastructure that is contemplated by the settlement?
Speaker 26
Thank you, Chair, members, Representative Leger Fernandez, thank you for the question. At this particular time, the deadline, the hard deadline of June 30th, 2028, established within the settlement, has been interpreted by the Department of Interior as a hard stop. And so with remaining funds, that date is an artificial date of completion based on the concerns, the obstacles that we've had within that COVID, inflation, has had all parties address and adjust to new hurdles. But this is a collaboration, as you indicated, from the state of New Mexico, from the four Pueblos and the Santa Fe County. This is a benefit.
There is currently no regional system within this area. The Pueblo, the four Pueblos maintain their own water systems, which are wells. Then you have Santa Fe County residents which have own individual, hundreds of own individual wells. There's been proactive monitoring of well contamination, nitrates, high levels. And so this is a benefit not only to serve tribal, but non-tribal residents within that entire region.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
And I want to emphasize something that your written testimony, your original testimony and that you answered today is, is that if we don't act, basically it doesn't matter whether the project is complete, it doesn't matter if there's money available to spend, it will stop. So it will stop and there might be a half-constructed pipeline that doesn't do anybody any good. And so that's why we need to act is to allow you all to say we want to extend the deadline. And the other key point of your testimony is, will this require any additional appropriation from Congress? Are you asking us for additional appropriation or are you just asking for an extension of the deadline?
Speaker 28
No additional funding is required. We are asking that the timeline associated with settlement be eliminated so that completion of the project would succeed and move forward.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. And so if we act on this and move this forward, as the chair pointed out, we need to get some of these things done so that you know that you can continue with your project and get it done and that you're all working together. We're going to turn the reins over to you to say, you tell us, you get to make the decision on the ground because you're on the ground making this happen.
I read in the testimony that one of the projects you thought you were going to get it in at 30 million and it came in at 60 million. So these are the kinds of obstacles you're dealing with and you're saying it's costing us more, but we're going to find ways to make it work with the money we have, is that right?
Christopher Moquino
Yes, all five parties, including the Bureau of Reclamation who has responsibility for overseeing it, has come to the table in agreement and strategized and looked at the timelines associated with it, funding mechanisms to make this a reality, but the barrier remains the June 30th, 2028.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Great. So I really look forward to having my colleagues' support and removing this artificial barrier and with that, thank you very much and I yield back.
Harriet Hageman
Well, and thank you for bringing this bill. I think that it is a good one and I know that I would support it, so thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Maloy for five minutes of questioning.
Celeste Maloy
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Truitt, I'm going to come clear down here to the other end of the long table. I was intrigued by what you were saying about the state being able to issue 404 permits versus having the Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction. And I think a lot of times there's an assumption that states are going to mess up environmental regulation and only the federal government can get it right, no matter how many times the federal government doesn't get it right. So can you give me any data on wetlands that were harmed when the state was in charge of issuing permits?
John Truitt
Thank you for the question, Representative, I appreciate that. And I do understand your point of the reference to sometimes it's viewed that states might not be able to handle it. So in the time we had in three months, just the 404 program, over 600 individual permits were issued and over 1,700 general permits were issued. None of them were overturned. I can say that.
Now the state's environmental resource permitting program, along with all of the other programs in regulatory, we handle air, we handle multiple federal programs, drinking water, UIC, etc., had just in regulatory last year just over 28,000 permits that went out in DEP regulatory. One was overturned on any environmental grounds whatsoever in the state. So I think our record is very good. We have been doing this a very long time. And we do closely work with, even though we don't have 404 right now, the Fish and Wildlife Service, our Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
So it's not as though communication hasn't ended, but I do believe we do do a very good job at what we do.
Celeste Maloy
Thank you. And what happened to the the existing applications or the ongoing applications when the court returned jurisdiction to the Army Corps?
John Truitt
So it's immediately, it is in effect a light switch happens. There is no glide path. The we stop work, pencils down, and hand over all our materials to the Army Corps at that time. Currently the Army Corps, I know not all of those have gone, you know, been processed and gone back out the door. But we are are certainly looking just holistically at what the timing is and it it did seem like it was more efficient when we had it at the time.
Speaker 36
And do you have any estimate of what that change, the lights going out and then the the less efficient process has cost Floridians?
Speaker 37
I couldn't give you off the top of my head an economic number, but I'm sure we can get back to your office with estimating something on that.
Speaker 35
Thank you, I would be happy to know that. And with that, Madam Chair, I'm going to yield you the rest of my time because I could tell you were not done when your time expired.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you. I'm going to turn to Mr. Sole. You previously served as a member of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, it's my understanding, and in your time on that commission, did you take actions to better protect manatees and conserve habitat for manatees?
Mike Sole
Thank you, Madam Chair. The short answer is yes. When when you look at Florida, and I think Congressman Donalds put it quite well, protecting the environment, protecting manatees is a bipartisan issue in Florida. And when you look at the challenges that the manatee faces, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation has to be prepared to adapt.
In 2020, we had the unusual mortality event for manatees, which required a quick response. And I will say that the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was very quick to respond to both recover and restore habitat specifically to address the challenges of seagrass loss in the Indian River Lagoon. So it's something that, yes, I believe the commission consistently looks at opportunities to further preserve both habitat and the manatee as a whole.
Harriet Hageman
Well, I'm going to follow up on the questioning of Ms. Malloy. And in Wyoming, we have the Game and Fish Department. And the folks who work there are absolutely phenomenal at managing our wildlife and our fisheries and our wildlife species. In your experience, does the state or the federal government support more on-the-ground conservation efforts for wildlife, whether they are listed or not?
Speaker 34
Well, one of the things Florida Constitution establishes is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is responsible for managing all game life, all species, non-game, game, etc., regardless of listed species. Um, so that responsibility rests with the with the commission itself. And they do a very robust job at managing anything, whether it be a game species for hunting or fishing, and our non-game species that that I think Floridians and visitors to Florida enjoy to visit and watch.
Harriet Hageman
What I think a lot of people fail to realize is that even if a species is listed, it primarily falls on the state to manage those species and to protect the species and ensure that they are recovered, whether they're listed as threatened or endangered. We don't have a slew of Fish and Wildlife Service employees in the state of Wyoming. We have the Game and Fish Department. So whether it's the gray wolf or the grizzly bear or the anything else, it is the state that actually manages the species whether they are listed or not. And I think it's important for the people of this committee to realize the significance of what our states do in terms of managing the wildlife.
And with that, I'm going to call on Ms. Stansbury for five minutes of questioning.
Melanie Stansbury
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I love your earrings today. They're beautiful. And thank you for supporting our water rights settlement. That means a lot to us. It's very important.
And I want to say thank you to all of you for traveling from all over the country and being here today. And I'm going to focus my comments today on our water rights settlements, all three of them, including the New Mexico settlement, but I strongly support restoration and protection of our species in Florida as well. So thank you for being here. As you all know, our tribal governments have fought for decades to protect their water rights, to obtain justice from the US government after this government signed hundreds of treaties and guaranteed in trust in perpetuity that we would protect the lands and waters of the tribal nations that the United States government entered agreements with. But yet for so many of our tribes, they have been unable to obtain the justice they so rightly deserve and are guaranteed under treaty and trust law.
Today we have three settlements in front of us, and I strongly support each of them. And two of them I have a personal connection to. In fact, I was a staffer on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources when the Pechanga settlement was passed in 2016, and I actually helped to draft and do technical amendments to parts of the Pechanga settlement when it went through. But I also cut my teeth as a graduate student studying the Aamodt settlement and working with the Pueblo governments who have literally sought to protect their water rights not just since 1966 and 1967, but since the 1600s.
What a lot of people don't realize is that the water settlements in New Mexico don't just date back to the 1960s, they date back to the first settlement of those lands by the Spanish. And in particular, San Ildefonso knows this well because your Pueblo Governor is right on the Rio Grande and was at the heart of the Pueblo Revolt and the resettlement and the reconquest. And those lands were encroached upon and those waters. And in fact, the first legal argument that was filed in this case was in the Spanish courts in the 1600s. And so this case is not just about resolving the water rights of the tribe today, it's about resolving a conflict that goes back for hundreds of years.
And it's about the future of our communities. New Mexico is currently experiencing the worst water year in recorded modern history. In Albuquerque, in the area where I live, the Middle Rio Grande, the river was dry for over 90 days this summer. Nobody has ever seen that before. Low snowpack, the river dried, animals died, the bosque is dying itself.
The city of Albuquerque is having to pump groundwater instead of using river water. And so the finalization of this water rights settlement is not just about settling these 400-year-old arguments over the settlement, it's about the future of our communities and making sure that there is water there for the tribal nations. And so Governor, I would like to ask you, can you please share a bit more, what is the importance of getting this settlement and the infrastructure finished and what will it mean for the Pueblos?
Speaker 26
Madam Chair, members, thank you Representative Stansbury for the question. And as you've indicated, protection of water rights is not only 60 to 100, it's multi-hundreds of years. There's been, but in the modern time, there's been expenses from legal, technical, engineering costs that associated with this over decades. Non-completion would basically put hundreds of millions of dollars into the ground and be ineffective and have a system that is non-functioning. The settlement has allowed relatively five parties to come together with one goal in mind and that's a creating safe water across the board for thousands of residents and tribal, non-tribal accessing it, allowing those that have environmental and concerns with their well water to be tapped into this system.
And so completion is of utmost priority, but for the Pueblo it also settles decades long, decades long water rights tied to this.
Christopher Moquino
Thank you Governor, and to all of our tribal leaders, thank you for being here. We look forward to getting your settlements done. Thank you and I yield back.
Melanie Stansbury
Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McDowell for five minutes of questioning.
Doug McDowell
Thank you Madam Chair, and just in the event that this is the last hearing that we have with you in the chair, I just I want to take a moment to say that it's been a real honor and I've enjoyed the time that that I've gotten to spend with you with the gavel. You've been very thoughtful and I've just really enjoyed our our time getting to know each other. So thank you. To the witnesses, thank you all for being here today. I think that the federal government needs to ask whether we actually help states manage wildlife or whether Washington is creating unnecessary obstacles for the people who are on the ground building America.
States, including North Carolina where I'm from, are capable of administering their own permitting responsibilities and they shouldn't have to go through repeatedly having to navigate additional layers of federal review.
An environmental review process should protect our resources without making it nearly impossible to actually build anything. Members across the aisle today have claimed that they are "pro-science" and "pro-manatee." Well, the truth is they are anti-growth and pro-red tape. And if you're opposed to the reforms that we're trying to make today, the reality is that you want environmental lawyers to get rich while local projects die in federal review purgatory. And if you take away the pictures of the puppies that the environmental lobby uses to allow feelings to get in the way of facts, this is not pro-science and pro-manatee.
It is pro-Washington, killing projects that they know nothing about. And the funny thing about all this, and Representative Donalds is correct, if we would simply get out of the way of the actual conservation and stop the radical environmentalists, we would actually do more for conservation, and these economic development projects wouldn't live in a courtroom for 30 years. We could actually do a better job of conservation, that's the funny thing. And we don't have to make conservation the enemy of economic development. So, Mr. Truitt, I have a question for you.
Does H.R. 9017 help reduce federal regulatory overreach?
John Truitt
When we are performing the same review twice at the state level and at the federal level, yes sir.
Speaker 43
What practical benefit does another round of federal consultation provide in, or if the underlying environmental analysis has already been completed?
John Truitt
Based on the outcomes of project permits for the same projects in the state of Florida, I have been unable to find a difference.
Madam Chair, I'll yield the rest of my time back to you.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you, I appreciate this. And Mr. Barbree, I'm just going to quickly ask you, do you think that it's fair that San Francisco continues to pay $30,000 a year for the privilege to use and capitalize on the Hetch Hetchy?
Speaker 39
I think that's an unfair figure. They should pay market rate, if you may. They also are exempt from treating their water, which is why they've been so hostile towards allowing any recreation on the Hetch Hetchy project. Those of us in the rest of California, Southern California, we pay $600 an acre-foot to treat our water. And there's no body contact through Metropolitan on the Colorado River Aqueduct from the time it leaves Lake Havasu.
So it travels 242 miles through our system and then gets treated still, even though there's been no body contact for those 242 miles. I don't know why San Francisco has always received a pass on that.
Harriet Hageman
Well, I know the value of water in Wyoming and in the interior West, and just paying $600 an acre-foot for municipal water is actually a good deal, let alone what you describe in terms of the treatment of it. So do you believe that the bill's $2 million annual payment better reflects the costs associated with that water?
Speaker 39
I still think it's low, but you know, we pay $1,500 an acre-foot for treated water to the retail customer. So that's an expensive commodity. And plus they get free power from it.
And it's all gravity fed. They don't have to pump it. On the Colorado River Aqueduct, we pump it five times. So we have to expend that power to pump it.
Harriet Hageman
Well, I think it's a good bill. And Mr. Roberts, very quickly, in your testimony, you give project-specific examples of how the state of Florida's assumption of Section 404 permitting accelerated the permitting process. What does this efficiency mean in real terms to local businesses and communities?
George Roberts
Well, with the vast growth of Florida, our infrastructure is constantly under construction of some sort all the time. So, you know, our ability for the congestion with traffic is anytime you hold up any any permit, it it affects the ability of the driving. And then I've personally seen developers pull away from projects that were from small to big projects due to the 404 permit of it being held up for months and months and months to where they just pull away and and can't afford it.
Harriet Hageman
Okay. I I feel your pain. I understand how difficult it can be to go through the 404 process. So again, thank you for being here. I now call in Ms. Hoyle, the ranking member, for five minutes of questions.
Val Hoyle
Thank you so much. And I would like to echo the chair's sentiments in saying, first of all, I've never seen a panel this large. Um, and the issues that are coming up today are are so critical, especially these water settlement agreements. And look, almost a third of our working days have been canceled this year. And so a lot of important things have fallen to the side that I think we could have worked on, we could have gotten done.
But none of us were going to let these issues fall off and leave this session without moving it forward and working to get it done because quite frankly, many of you have waited far too long to have this happen. Um, so first of all, I'd like to ask Chairman Grupp, your testimony describes the impacts of checkerboarding on your reservation to benefit non-Indian users. How does H.R. 5935 help with checkerboarding? We have the O&C lands, so our forest lands are checkerboarded and it's hard to manage. How does this settlement agreement benefit both tribal members and non-Indian residents as well?
Jeff Grubbe
No, thank you for that question. It's very complicated. Most people don't realize how big our reservation is and most of the land is shared with non non-Indians being checkerboarded. So we all pump from the same we're using the same ground source, the ground aquifer below it. We were able to work on this settlement, which is great because the local water districts already have the infrastructure that is supplying the water to the ratepayers, which are tribal and non-tribal.
Obviously, overwhelming majority are non-tribal. And so we want this settlement allows us to help contribute funds to to better better those existing uh I can't think of the word, the existing infrastructure and expand upon it because Coachella Valley is growing. So this this is a unique a unique settlement um in that it does benefit the tribe, gives us a seat at the table, govern, plan for the future, but it also is going to benefit the Coachella Valley. And the state of California, I want to make a correction, Madam Chair, they are contributing 15 million, not 10. So I don't want to cut California short.
They did contribute 15 million in this settlement.
Val Hoyle
Great. Thank you so much. Ms. Crooks, um so I appreciate you coming all the way from Florida today to testify. I represent 250 miles of the Oregon coastline, about two-th about two-thirds of it. And while our communities are on opposite sides of the country, we both know that local water wildlife management issues are vital to coastal livelihoods.
And our communities are deeply involved in making sure we get this balancing act right. So could you tell me, is there a pathway to allow the state of Florida to take over this permit program?
Wouldn't they need to just fix the biological opinion, and is this legislation necessary?
Amber Crooks
Yes, thank you for the question. They do have available pathways that they can pursue. One of them is the continued litigation. The other is they could go and fix the inherent errors that's been identified by two courts and reapply for the program. What instead they're asking is for this body to advance a bill that is going to bless something that courts have found, two courts have found to be inconsistent with Endangered Species Act.
This need, this program needs to meet at least the minimum standards. And that means real effects for where I'm from in Southwest Florida. It's not just about preserving our endangered species like the Florida panther, but it's also about protecting those local economies that depend on our green spaces and our wildlands. I can give you multiple examples, I know our time is running short, of how preserving those areas actually feedback into our local economy, both in the interior in places like Big Cypress National Preserve, which is one of the most visited, visited more than Everglades National Park in fact, and also our coastal areas. We're talking about a 5.2 billion coastal economy just in three counties in our area that depends on clean water.
Great. Thank you so much, and thanks again to everyone that spoke today. I yield back.
Harriet Hageman
Thank you, and I again want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the members for your participation and your questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. And under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit such questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Monday, September 21st. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. And if there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.