HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 February 12, 2010 Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: | am writing to you to express my concern regarding your proposed rider to the Jobs Bill | am worried that the rider will effectively negate the tremendous amount of work that the Adi istration, State, Congress and the public have been working on collaboratively to address the California water drought. As Chairwoman of the Water and Power Subcommittee | have been personally involved in addressing the water issue in a collaborative and transparent approach. We have been working directly with the Administration to address these issues and feel that we have been making significant headway. Within the last three weeks we have: Held a California Water Oversight Hearing in Los Angeles. Representatives of the State, Federal, agriculture, fishing, academic and private entities testified and discussed collaborative approaches to the water issue. Significant discussion and dialogue occurred. Held a water user meeting in Los Angeles where we talked to local water suppliers and politicians on how to continue to reduce imports from northern California, Held a legislative hearing last week on the legislation that would allow a larger percentage of federal funding for specific projects in the Bay-Delta. Several more bills are scheduled to come before the Subcommittee in the next several weeks.* Worked every day with the Administration, the Department of the Interior, the State of California, and local water users on ways to address the water concerns through a transparent and scientifically-based approach. ‘+ Identified multiple short term actions that can be taken to reduce water supply issues, On all levels we have been making progress that will allow development of collaborative approaches to our water issue. While the Water and Power Subcommittee is working with many California Members on solutions, | am very concerned that the proposed rider threatens to throw the ongoing collaboration process into disarray. Specifically: + This rider would likely derail the Bay Delta Conservation Plan efforts. NGOs in the BDCP have consistently signaled that any long-term planning for the Delta must be based on maintaining respect for ESA protections. If the BCDP collapses, there is no long term venue to solve California's water problems. Since Westlands is part of the BDCP process this sends exactly the wrong message on collaboration. + This rider would undercut the Obama administration's efforts on California water. In December the Secretary of the Interior initiated their Interim Work Plan. This follows on the September agreement among five cabinet agencies committing to working together to implement a program which is built around the BDCP. That administration action plan includes an expedited National Academy of Sciences study of the biological opinions. The very NRC panel that you set up to provide guidance on the Biological Opinions. This rider would effectively signal that we don't really care about the NRC, and that we are going to make our own decisions, not based on science but on specific user groups. If Congress is going to edit or possibly override the biological opinions based on lawsuits, the Administration's efforts can’t go forward, and the NAS study may be wasted. + The State of California passed a landmark set of legislation in November and is set have the state bond on the November 2010 ballot. This act will throw into question the intent of the legislation. Secondly, from a state perspective this rider would in effect usurp the State water rights system. + The rider is inappropriate for a jobs bill. Overriding provisions protecting salmon would negatively impact the west coast salmon fishery, which supports thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. The water supply to support the rider could potentially impact existing water rights settlements for the Klamath and Trinity River tribes. + The rider has never been subject to a hearing and it is in conflict with the state legislative efforts for the last year on a comprehensive Bay-Delta package.| understand your concern over the impact of reduced water deliveries to the water districts on the West Side. | believe that there are other ways to address the problems in California that do not involve overriding science and legislatively identifying winners and losers. | would ask that before moving forward that we meet to discuss and sketch out a process and a strategy for addressing the water problems. In August we identified an approach to creating more water supply for California, avoiding the need to import large amounts of water, which would help reduce impacts to the agricultural community. | ask that we talk to address our concerns and to discuss how we can avoid this radical approach to addressing the water issues in California and work together on addressing the water concerns. Sincerely, Bz Grace F. Napolitaflo Chairwoman, Subcommittee Water and Power