11 



First, I support this measure, and I want to clarify why I feel 

 there is strong need for legislation to reform the CVPIA. The Ad- 

 ministration admits there are problems with it. The issue is not 

 whether or not to address them but how and when. It is clear to 

 me that what Congress intended when it first passed this bill is not 

 being adequately followed. 



The Administration believes that many of these problems have 

 the potential to be addressed within the Bureau of Reclamation 

 without Congress having to take legislative action. They believe it 

 is too early to begin tampering with a law that is two and a half 

 years old. 



My question to the Department of Interior is if they could have 

 taken care of these problems administratively, why haven't they 

 done so in the ample amount of time they have already been pro- 

 vided? My constituents who work with this law have simply lost 

 patience. 



There is no justification for not attempting to reach consensus on 

 how the underlying problems in the CVPIA should be addressed. 

 The time has come, and statutory language is needed to make sure 

 that the intent of Congress is fully understood this time around. 

 Nothing is to be gained by allowing any uncertainty to continue 

 since it is generally acknowledged that clarity is needed on many 

 points. 



For example, the Administration's view is reflected in the Bay- 

 Delta Accord, and the drafting of this bill are nearly identical in 

 the accounting of the 800,000 acre feet of water to help the CVP 

 meet the anadromous fish doubling goal. Why not end two and a 

 half years of speculation and controversy and write it into law? 



As someone who represents a great number of water users living 

 under this uncertainty and who has made every efibrt to reach out 

 to the Administration and to work out these issues of disagree- 

 ment, I see no justification for allowing this situation to continue 

 any longer. We have an opportunity to put the project on stable 

 footing with the adoption of H.R. 1906. 



I know some environmental groups are concerned that this re- 

 form bill will undermine the Bay-Delta Accord, and I think it is im- 

 portant as we go through this process to put this concern to rest. 

 It is certainly not my intent or the intent I believe of the other co- 

 sponsors of this measure to jeopardize the integrity of this carefully 

 crafted agreement. 



The CVP has undergone greater scrutiny and been subjected to 

 all sorts of special rules and requirements that no other Federal 

 Bureau of Reclamation project has been required to comply with. 

 From unique and confusing water conservation standards to com- 

 plex water transfer requirements that actually have impeded log- 

 ical transfers, to shorter and less secure contracts — ^the list goes 

 on — ^we are creating complicated and uncertain environments both 

 for agriculture, for water conservation, and any other broadened 

 purposes of the CVPIA. 



I think it is time to equalize the playing field so that all Califor- 

 nians benefit and know where they stand. This bill is a good first 

 step to bringing these issues to the table, putting them through 

 legislative review, and clarifying what improvements can and 

 should be made to the improvement of the improvement Act. 



