In a statement issued Wednesday, seven Northern California members of the U.S. House of Representatives said Republican-backed legislation would not adequately address California’s water situation.

The seven include U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, who represents Benicia and Vallejo in the House. Joining him is John Garamendi, D-Fairfield, and George Miller, D-Martinez, who was Benicia’s representative until districts were redrawn after the 2010 U.S. Census.

“With just a few days left in the legislative session, the House plans to pass yet another divisive, dishonest, and potentially devastating California water bill without any public input or legislative oversight,” the congressmen said in their prepared statement.

“This is unconscionable, and just the latest chapter in their reckless approach to micromanaging the state’s water during one of the worst droughts in our history.”

The bill, called the California Emergency Drought Relief Act and introduced by U.S. Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, isn’t backed exclusively by Republicans. Jim Costa, a Fresno Democrat, also supports the legislation introduced by other California members of Congress.

It also has the support of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, who said, “For the sake of the people of California, we can no longer delay action.”

Consisting of 28 pages, the bill is described as a temporary, 18-month measure that is friendly to farmers and that drops elements of previous legislation that some members of Congress found objectionable.

“We are offering a compromise based on the Senate water bill in a further demonstration that a bipartisan majority in the House is both willing and able to act,” said U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a Tulare Republican.

But the Northern California Democrats weren’t buying that description of the legislation.

“The idea that this bill is a ‘compromise’ is laughable,” their statement said. “It is clear that this bill was thrown together without any input from anyone other than those who stand to benefit from its passage.

“This bill was not reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee, nor has it received input from federal agencies, the state, affected local water agencies, the fishing industry, tribes, or communities,” the statement said. “Legislation this sweeping should be the subject of public hearings and input from all affected stakeholders.”

They said the bill would hamper state and federal agencies in making “real-time water decisions.” It would undermine state water rights priorities, and it misstates current law and overrides the Endangered Species Act, they asserted.

“These sweeping changes would place the West Coast’s environment, tribes, communities, and the fishing industry in harm’s way in the next drought year,” the statement said.

Some observers contend the bill’s tougher test is in the Senate, where Sen. Dianne Feinsten, D-Calif., halted negotiations for California water legislation in favor of introducing a new bill during the next Congress.

The House bill would increase water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, would provide certain protections for customers in the Sacramento Valley and would require temporary flexibility of water project operations during early storms.

“The drought does not stop at the edge of congressional districts, yet this bill insulates some parts of the state from the tough water decisions that will be made in the next year,” the Northern California Democrats said in their statement.

“We’re all in this together, and Congress should not tie water managers’ hands nor should we address drought conditions in some parts of the state at the expense of others,” they said.

Others collaborating on the statement were Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton, and Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove.