24 



That provision is not designed to inhibit it. It is designed to fur- 

 ther it, and I don't think now is the time to get into an elaborate 

 explanation of that. But please don't believe everything our critics 

 say without at least looking at what we are trying to do, and you 

 evaluate it for yourself. And with that, I am going to recognize Mr. 

 Dooley and then Mr. Miller and then Mr. Pombo. 



Mr. Dooley. Senator Bradley, I have the highest respect for your 

 knowledge and understanding of our issues. You obviously have 

 done a lot of work, especially for being outside of the area. But I 

 guess the opportunity that I want to take now really is to dispel 

 some of the notions that this is a bill that is trying to unravel the 

 CVPIA. 



I don't think it can be characterized as that, and it is, in fact, 

 a good faith effort to deal with some problems because if you really 

 look at what we are doing, we are still maintaining our commit- 

 ment on the 800,000 acre feet. We are maintaining our commit- 

 ment to provide for the $30 million in the restoration fund. We are 

 maintaining our commitment to try to provide for and facilitate 

 transfers. Really, on the basic components, there is no backing 

 away from any of those. We are trying to get at some of the modi- 

 fications that need to be made in order to accomplish those other 

 things. 



And I want to specifically address one issue concerning tiered 

 pricing because I think that this year is one of the best examples 

 of why there needs to be some modifications. When we have tre- 

 mendous rainfall and snowpack like we had this year, and when 

 we have the opportunity for water districts in the San Joaquin Val- 

 ley to recharge their aquifers, that last acre foot is the acre foot 

 that is doing the most for conservation. You know, it is the one 

 that is going back to recharge our aquifers that has been depleted. 



If you have a tiered pricing system that is in place as it was pre- 

 scribed in the legislation, you actually have a reverse incentive for 

 that conservation practice. And this is a good example of why there 

 needs to be some accommodations. Maybe on this issue, it doesn't 

 have to be fixed legislatively, but somehow we have to have a rec- 

 ognition that there needs to be some administrative changes so 

 when we have these opportunities they are not thwarted by mis- 

 guided policy. 



I think that is that same type of approach that many of us think 

 is embodied throughout our bill, that we are trying to find a way 

 to make some changes. And some of our critics out there are trying 

 to represent that we are walking away from the Bay-Delta agree- 

 ment. But the Bay-Delta agreement is one of the most important 

 agreements, from the ag perspective as well as the urban perspec- 

 tive, in the State of California. Nobody wants to jeopardize that. 

 We simply need an agreement that goes beyond three years, and 

 that is the life span of the Bay-Delta Accord. We need to find a way 

 to build upon that, and we think with some modifications, this is 

 going to be very consistent with what was in that. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will call on Mr. Pombo. 



Mr. POMBO. I wanted George to go first. Well, Senator, I probably 

 am in one of the most unique positions of any member of Congress 

 in terms of water because of my district. My district has CVP 

 water. I have urban users. I have agricultural users. I have envi- 



