22 



in getting the Bureau of Reclamation to take a good look at prior- 

 ities and other issues. 



The water of Oregon in the constitution is dedicated to all the 

 people of Oregon, and so we do have a vested interest in what is 

 coming out of Oregon into your system and are very, very con- 

 cerned about this issue. 



We are being forced by the Bureau to release an overabundance 

 of water into the system, and it is creating a hardship on our agri- 

 cultural community in the southern part of my district because of 

 the Bureau's actions. 



We are trjdng to circumvent those, and we have not been able 

 to. We are forced to do more than historical runs in the process and 

 hopefully that will come to some conclusion in this process which 

 will help us in the future. I want to thank the committee for bring- 

 ing this up. It makes California such a big area, and with so many 

 individuals concerned, it will help us a great deal. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Are there further questions of the 

 members of Congress who have appeared to testify? If not, we will 

 excuse you and thank you very much for appearing today. 



Senator BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman 



Mr. DooLiTTLE. Senator Bradley. 



Senator Bradley [continuing], since I went over and voted and 

 came all the way back in anticipation of some heavy grilling, but 

 let me if I could just make just a few comments and then leave if 

 that is OK; try to respond quickly to some of the points that have 

 been raised because I think some of the points that have been 

 raised are important points. 



The first thing I want to say is that in my relationship with you, 

 Mr. Chairman, and with Mr. Dooley and with other members who 

 were formerly from the Central Valley has always been of the high- 

 est quality. I think you have done an extremely aggressive and out- 

 standing job of representing the interests of the constituents that 

 you are seeking to represent. 



I know that agriculture is a very sizable part of your constitu- 

 ency, and I believe that there has been — ^you in no way could be 

 faulted for trying to represent those interests. The whole thrust 

 though of the Central Valley Improvement Act was to say is water 

 from the Central Valley Project only for agricultural interests? And 

 I think the fundamental thrust was, no, it is not. It should be 

 available for urban users if a landowner wants to make that sale, 

 and it should be available for fish and wildlife. 



One of the things in the Act that troubles me, and I don't know 

 what the position of the Metropolitan Water District will be or any 

 of the other water districts that are outside of the Central Valley 

 Project itself, is the section of the bill that allows essentially a 

 water district to deny a landowner the right to sell his water to 

 whomever he chooses. 



Under the Central Valley Improvement Act, we said that the 

 right of first refusal for any water sale should go to anyone in the 

 district. And, second, that no more than, I think, 20 percent of the 

 water could be sold to any one water district. But we did preserve 

 the opportunity for landowners to sell their water rights essentially 

 to urban districts. 



