20 



And, Senator Bradley, I just want to point out that if you do not 

 have time to listen to the urban witnesses — ^who represent a vari- 

 ety of urban water districts including Alameda County, the City 

 and County of San Francisco, the East Bay Metropolitan Water 

 District, and the Santa Clara Valley — ^you should at least know 

 that they went through point by point. 



And you will find that there is a great deal of support and com- 

 monality between what we £ire asking for and what they are agree- 

 ing to. They agree in concept that there needs to be clarification 

 on the use of the 800,000 acre feet. And that is what we are trying 

 to do. They agree that there needs to be modifications in the water 

 transfer provisions because they, quite clearly, aren't working now. 

 They are not opposing those provisions. 



They agree that there needs to be changes in the tiered pricing 

 because that is not working. And they agree that there needs to be 

 modifications to the contracts to provide for greater certainty. They 

 also agree that there needs to be some consideration given to the 

 reforms in the Trinity River provisions. I mean, this is not just ag- 

 riculture contractors that are bringing forth a piece of legislation 

 that is trjdng to unravel the beneficial provisions of the Central 

 Valley Project Improvement Act. We think that we are trying to 

 move forward in a very responsible way, and I would hope that the 

 characterization of this legislation would not be such that it doesn't 

 recognize the good faith effort that has been put forth. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have to 

 agree with the gentleman, Mr. Miller, from California when he 

 made the statement that the people in California don't own the 

 New York Stock Exchange. But by the same tone, the people in 

 New York did not own California water. The people in California 

 or the state owned California water. 



And what happened with the CVPIA was the Federal Grovem- 

 ment took 800,000 acre feet, and I think California was very gener- 

 ous. And if you will check the Supreme Court Decisions and your 

 law, you will find out that is correct. And so that analogy simply 

 does not hold up. 



I also found it interesting that the reclamation projects have 

 been referred to as government subsidies because in this case the 

 irrigators have been paying back on their projects, and I would 

 hope that I could hear from the gentleman from California the 

 same argument when the bill on the Presidio comes up, when the 

 taxpayers from all over this nation is going to be paying $25 mil- 

 lion a year plus guaranteeing a lot of loans. So I just would chal- 

 lenge the gentleman from California to be consistent. 



I think that there is a great consensus here in this bill. I am very 

 proud of the members from California on both sides of the aisle. I 

 do have a question for Mr. Fazio. You did state that Secretary 

 Krug said — oh, Mr. Fazio left. Well, let me ask 



Senator Bradley. I will be glad to give his answer if you would 

 like. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. I didn't mean to chase him away. Well, let me 

 ask the Senator then. 



Senator Bradley. But don't take me seriously. 



