{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1933-2", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT COMPLETION ACT", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "ALLOTHER", "E1933", "E1933", "[{\"name\": \"Wes Cooley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2392\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. E1933", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1933]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                 UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT COMPLETION ACT\n\n                                 ______\n\n                            HON. WES COOLEY\n\n                               of oregon\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                        Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n  Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last year,\nI have worked diligently to resolve long-standing water disputes in the\nUmatilla Basin of northeast Oregon. With the help of Senator Hatfield,\naffected irrigation districts in the Basin (the districts, the\nConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (the Tribes),\nand the State of Oregon (the State), we were able to fashion a\ncompromise which struck the delicate balance between environmental\nenhancement and the needs of the local economy. However, this consensus\ncould not have been reached if all sides were not willing to\ncompromise. Because of this, I am somewhat puzzled by recent statements\nthat place the blame for the bill's failure on the irrigation\ndistricts.\n  H.R. 2392, my bill to adjust the boundaries for the four irrigation\ndistricts in the Umatilla Basin, has undergone many changes in the past\nyear. The original draft of the bill would have simply adjusted these\nboundaries upon enactment. However, it has always been my intention to\nlisten carefully to all members of the community in the hopes of\nultimately crafting a proposal which has unanimous support. So, when\nthe Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation (the Tribes)\nraised concerns about the need for a continued commitment to\nenvironmental enhancement, and a new NEPA study prior to boundary\nadjustment, I added those provisions to the bill.\n  The compromise agreed to by the Tribes, the districts, and the State\nof Oregon would make the boundary adjustments contingent upon\ncompletion of a NEPA study and approval of the Secretary of the\nInterior--a major concession on the part of the districts who were\nseeking long-term stability. In addition, I added language that\nrequires the districts to donate 6,500 acre feet of water per year for\nenvironmental enhancement--as their interim contract requires--until a\nportion of Phase III of the Umatilla Basin Project large enough to\nexchange 90 cubic feet per second is completed and operational. These\nprovisions were added in a good faith attempt to address the concerns\nof the Tribes.\n  Unfortunately, despite the agreement of all affected interests in the\nBasin, the Clinton Administration threatened to veto the bill. They\nwanted to alter the bill so that the Secretary of the Interior had full\ndiscretion to not only adjust the boundaries, but to alter the size of\nthe new boundaries. In short, they wanted the authorization to do\nsomething for which they are already authorized, but have failed to\naccomplish. The Administration wanted more spending authority without\naddressing the basic issue of boundary adjustments. In short, they\nwanted to have their cake and eat it too. I could not support a change\nthat would render the status quo.\n  The compromise reached by all of the interests in the Umatilla Basin\nwould have succeeded because each of the parties had an economic stake\nin seeing that the other parties' objectives were attained. The\ndistricts' opposition to the Administration's request to negate the one\nsection of the bill in which they have an interest should not be viewed\nas uncooperative. By removing sections from the bill that pertain to\nthe districts, we would be left with an unbalanced, unworkable solution\nthat would not solve the complex problems in the Basin, or provide\nlong-term stability for all who live there.\n  Even more troubling than the Clinton Administration's threatened veto\nover a procedural technicality, are some of the statements that have\nbeen made since the bill failed to pass. These statements argue that\nthe districts' failure to compromise was responsible for the bill's\ninability to win Administration support. Nothing could be further from\nthe truth.\n  Once again, I would point out the progress we have made in the last\nyear. What once was a bill that only contained boundary adjustments\nupon enactment for the four districts, eventually contained provisions\nthat first, authorized $64 million for construction of Phase III of the\nUmatilla Basin Project; second, authorized $6.5 million for the Tribes'\nshare of a joint City of Pendleton/Tribes' water storage facility;\nthird, authorized $500,000 for development of a water management plan,\nand a ground water/surface water model of the Umatilla Basin; fourth,\nauthorized $400,000 annually for the operation of Phases I, II, and\nIII; fifth, required that the Secretary of the Interior enter into\nnegotiations with the State of Oregon to determine the Tribes' water\nright claim; sixth, required the districts to donate 6,500 acre feet of\nwater for environmental enhancement until a portion of Phase III is\nbuilt large enough to exchange 90 cubic feet per second; and seventh,\nrequired a NEPA study to be conducted prior to the adjustment of the\ndistricts' boundaries.\n  Many of these provisions, particularly numbers 6 and 7, constitute\nsubstantial movement on the part of the districts, and should not be\ndiscounted in the rush to lay blame on any one party.\n  I still maintain that the only way to address the Umatilla Basin's\nlong-standing water issues is to work together in a cooperative\neffort--something I felt was accomplished this year. Although I will\nnot be returning for the 105th Congress, I hope that my successor--\nwhoever it may be--builds upon the agreements reached in the last year,\nand helps to foster long-term stability for the environment and the\nlocal economy in the Umatilla Basin.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1933-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.109610078856349, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}