Add protection for endangered species and sacred lands and this is fine.

Our water problems are more broad than addressed by the bill. For example, while it discusses drought and flood management, it looks at them only on a region by region basis. What is needed is a comprehensive program to move floodwater to drought stricken areas. And to give EPA more capability to specify and enforce clean water standards. These are not State decisions; they are national.

Add language to adequately respect the ESA while still providing water to drought stricken areas. We also as a nation (CA in particular) need to rethink water property rights and market design strategies to address fundamental inequalities in how the existing system works.

"I prefer drinking water for all people" and other similar remarks. First amendment sweetheart, but there are no amendments supporting ignorance of issues. Drain one area of the country and that section becomes endangered. Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Canada, Pennsylvania, New York. These are the places to be drained. Nah! There is no common sense in this. We choose to live, or remain to live in hazardous areas. That is a choice one makes and there is no power to force others to take a knee to provisions of poor choices. Live in a tornado area, expect tornados, live in a hurricane area, expect hurricanes. Benevolent assistance is not denied. Emotionally derived ideologies are not acceptable reasons to drain resources. Doing this is no less legislatively political. As a nation we as a people are being drained by men and women who make up rules and regulations they don't have to live under. but expect us to live under. Precious snowflakes must melt and come to reality.

We need to focus our funds on Flint before we waste them on a project that ignores them Endangered Species Act.

What the fuck? Cornyn took money that was going to be put towards flint and is redirecting it? What an evil prick.

This should be State legislation. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to fix/correct state negligence. Of course, California wouldn't stand up to the Feds over a smelt that was native to the San Joaquin Delta causing thousands of agricultural acres into tumble weeds. I April 2015 trawl survey, state Fish and Wildlife scientists caught only one of the pinky-sized, politicized fish with an outsized role in California’s water wars. A UC Davis-run hatchery are filled with thousands of baby smelt — where, for now, they’ll stay, generation after generation because the Delta waters are too brackish. My view-the Delta Smelt have been forced to immigrate and may never be allowed to return home. The fish itself is unremarkable — short-lived, tiny and so translucent it’s almost invisible.

This bill threatens the endangered species act. There has to be a way to help Californians without causing the extinction of native wildlife.

I think there is a need for the improvement of quality and access of clean water, especially in places like Flint. However I think we need to find a way to have clean water while respecting the environment.

We must respect the Endangered Species Act first and foremost.

Stop putting things in pork spending bills that truly don't fix the problems then intend too!!

I rarely, if ever, discourage improved infrastructure or drinking water improvement, but if it is true that this broadly neglects measures that could severely damage the fishing habitat and agriculture industry, we need to revise the bill first. Furthermore, I question the transparency of this bill.

More economic thinking about how the ESA has affected our economic system, for better or worse, is a research priority. Economists have not yet estimated the national costs or benefits of the ESA, and no one has even dared to guess, given the complexity of the ESA debate. Furthermore, we need to address a broader question of social order: how we trade secure property rights and protection of endangered species. One person's inalienable right to protect endangered species will need to be balanced against another's inalienable right of self-determination. A better understanding of the economic costs, benefits, trade-offs, and opportunities should fuel a more informative debate over ESA reauthorization.