Platte River Recovery Implementation Program

In October, Congress passed H.R.1462, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program. At the time of passage, Adrian Smith put out a press release making a big claim in the very title:

Smith Secures Language in House-Passed Platte River Recovery Bill

Within the press released, it stated:

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) today announced the House of Representatives has passed the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, H.R. 1462, unanimously. Introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), and cosponsored by Smith, the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to engage in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.

Smith has a history of not acknowledging all those involved in passing a bill. While he acknowledged the sponsor was Mark Udall (a change from the first release earlier in the year where he gave the wrong name), he did not acknowledge all the other Representatives, or even state governors, that were just as much a part of the bill.

Along with Smith, Representatives Jeff Fortenberry (NE), John Salazar (CO), and Lee Terry were signed on at the time of introduction with Mark Udall. Soon after, Representatives Barbara Cubin (WY), Diana DeGette (CO) and Ed Permutter (CO) also signed on.

But the work on this bill didn't even start with any of these Representatives.

In Mark Udall's press release, he takes a completely different approach. While he doesn't present every name of every representative, he still acknowledges that this bill is a result of a lot of work over a long period of time by many people:

Washington, DC – A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, that would protect the water rights of farmers and several growing cities that use the Platte River’s water, while still complying with the Endangered Species Act passed the House floor today on a voice vote. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.

The Platte River Agreement bill, H.R. 1462, authorizes funding for the Interior Department to carry out its responsibilities under an agreement with Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. The agreement’s purpose is to assist in the conservation and recovery of four endangered and threatened species, including the whooping crane and the pallid sturgeon, in a way that will allow existing water-related activities to continue and some additional water-related activities to occur. This agreement would not involve the creation of Federal water rights or require the grant of water rights to Federal entities.........

“This agreement is the result of 14 years of hard work and negotiations that culminated last year when the governors of Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska joined Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne joined together in signing the agreement,” said Udall.

Now to the next statement that Smith makes:

Smith worked to ensure the bill’s accompanying committee report contained language instructing federal agencies to work cooperatively with all relevant interests, including the affected local communities, as it relates to the Program’s goals and how activities may affect landowners.

“Throughout this process, I wanted to make sure landowners’ concerns were met and their questions were answered. Today, we took an important step in this longstanding issue. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to see this legislation provides certainty for farmers, ranchers, businesses, and communities in my district,” said Smith.

This is another of the "I" statements that I've pointed out many times before that Smith is prone to make. What I mean by that is Smith taking credit for something he was not responsible for. He's basically saying "I and I alone secured language regarding landowners". That would be false.

Not even Mark Udall makes "I" statements with his press release, only stating that this bill:

"...would be modeled after a somewhat similar program that has helped the recovery of several endangered species of fish in the upper basin of the Colorado River. I have strongly supported that program because it has enabled us in Colorado and other participating states to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act while allowing continued development and use of water for other purposes as well."

He's not taking claim of doing all the work, but stating his support.



Now for the full story on this bill.

H.R. 1492 was not the first version of the bill.

The first bill was S. 3611, introduced in the 109th Congress. Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado was the Sponsor, with Senator Ken Salazar, also of Colorado, being the cosponsor. The bill was referred to committee in June 2006 and never went any further. In 2007, Mark Udall stepped up and resubmitted the bill, this time in the House.

When you compare the wording of the two versions, you find they are the same bill. There is no change. It's a result of many years of work and the terms have been made clear. This was all done well before Adrian Smith came into the picture.

But Smith talked about the Committee Report. Smith would not have been a participant in the mark-up hearing that produced this report. Prior to this meeting, there had been other hearings, of course.

During a subcommittee hearing, Nebraska's Director of Natural Resources, Ann Bleed, stated in her formal testimony:

The Program has established an organizational structure that will ensure appropriate state and federal government and stakeholder involvement in the implementation of the Program. The Program will utilize an incremental approach to land and water management that places an appropriate and heavy reliance on the development of sound science through an adaptive management program. This adaptive management program has developed extensive protocols for testing hypotheses and management techniques to insure that the efforts of program participants will produce the desired results.

She also stated:

In summary, the negotiations to develop this program were long and arduous. The time, land, water and financial commitments by the States, water and power districts, environmental interests and the people in the basin are very substantial. There are a lot of future challenges that the Program must overcome. However, when the Governor’s of all three States signed the Program agreement, the States attested to the premise that cooperation and collaboration will provide a much higher likelihood of protecting habitat and providing regulatory certainty for all involved than any other alternative. For this reason I urge you to enable the federal government to be a partner in this collaborative effort.

In the Committee Report that accompanied the bill, it stated the following:

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1462 was introduced on March 9, 2007 by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Water and Power. On April 26, 2007, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 12, 2007, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. The bill was approved by unanimous consent and forwarded to the Full Committee on Natural Resources. On October 10, 2007, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Subcommittee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano offered an amendment to clarify Sec. 103, at the request of the Administration. The bill, as amended, was agreed to by unanimous consent and was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives.

Then in the Section-by-Section Analysis, it states:

Sec. 102 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and, in cooperation with the Governance Committee, to carry out any projects or activities that are designated for implementation during the Program's first 13 years (First Increment). The Secretary is also authorized in this section, in cooperation with the Governance Committee, to (1) enter into agreements with federal and non-federal groups; (2) acquire interests in land, water, and facilities from willing sellers; (3) transfer acquired interests; and (5) accept or provide grants.

The Committee is aware that the success of the Program is dependent on a number of factors, including a workable, results-oriented and efficient Adaptive Management Program and consistent communication with stakeholders. As such, the Committee expects the Governance Committee to work cooperatively with all relevant interests, including the affected local communities, as it relates to the how the Program's goals are being met and how activities may affect landowners. Since the States retain the ability to withdraw from the agreement at any time for any reason, the Committee strongly encourages the Governance Committee to hold public forums regularly to help stakeholders and the general public better understand the Program's objectives and impacts.

Smith could try to claim that he was responsible for the "landowners" part, but if you look closer at the bill, and what the "Governance Committee" is, you find that could not be the case. The definition is:

(3) GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE- The term `Governance Committee' means the governance committee established under the Agreement and composed of members from the States, the Federal Government, environmental interests, and water users.

That was an original part of the bill.



SUMMARY

Smith did cosponsor a necessary bill, but that is as far as it goes. He had no greater role than anyone else. The bill itself was one written up in the last Congress. The concerns about the impact of this program on everyone, including landowners, was always present and steps were taken to try and address all concerns upon agreement by all three states.

It was not SMITH that "secured language" in the bill or the committee report, but rather the countless others over the last decade that addressed the matter long before Smith came on board.

It was a bill also set up to meet the standards of the Endangered Species Act.

Just remember, prior to going to Congress, Smith's primary comments on the matter:

We talked about the Platte River and how Lake McConaughy is low and is projected to stay low. I asked if he felt the Federal Government should get involved and help pay farmers to not irrigate.

He felt that would be a short-term fix. “I believe many of the problems are caused by the Endangered Species Act. The Act is one of the biggest unfunded mandates, and it is bad for agriculture and the municipalities.” He feels that the water use on the Platte is best dealt with on the local level.

Looks like it was dealt with at the local, state, and federal level, as it should be.