33 



extent that this legislation moves forward, we would urge the Con- 

 gress to consider including a new approach to the process of CVPIA 

 implementation. 



It is hard to find very many people out there who are satisfied 

 with the current federally dominated implementation process. So 

 we would urge you to include a new approach in legislation that 

 is patterned after what is apparently a widely agreed upon success, 

 the Bay-Delta Accord. 



Specifically, the Urban Coalition would recommend a process 

 that satisfies two key criteria. First, there should be a co-equal 

 partnership between the state and Federal Governments, some- 

 thing along the lines of that which is being developed within 

 CALFED in California. 



Second, we think it is essential that there are meaningful sub- 

 stantive avenues for stakeholder input into decisionmaking, and we 

 mean by that urban, agricultural, environmental, and fisheries 

 stakeholder interests. 



Because of its importance, I should also take a few moments to 

 talk about the Urban Coalition's perspective on the 800,000 acre 

 feet of dedicated water, perhaps the most controversial feature of 

 the CVPIA. A central tenet of the urban position is that this water 

 must remain available primarily for fish and wildlife restoration 

 purposes. 



Decisions about the water should be science driven, preferably 

 through a state-Federal stakeholder process. At the same time, we 

 do believe that the 800,000 acre feet should be capped to provide 

 some certainty for CVP water users, and that capping mechanism 

 should include a crediting process consistent with the December ac- 

 cord so that other water losses from other regulatory arenas are 

 credited against the 800,000 acre feet obligation. 



To assure reliability for the environment, the Urban Coalition 

 strongly supports the development of effective and timely methods 

 to purchase water to the extent it is required above the 800,000 

 acre foot cap. And you can't get there from here without that com- 

 mitment to environmental water purchases. Lastly, we believe that 

 reuse should be acceptable but only if it is understood to be a clear- 

 ly secondary purpose of the environmental water. 



In closing, we would like to thank the Chairman and members 

 of the committee for this opportunity to express our views. I must 

 say that taken on its whole, currently H.R. 1906 is not consistent 

 with all of the important principles that we are putting before you 

 in our written testimony today. 



For that reason, we cannot support H.R. 1906 in its current form. 

 I want to provide assurances to others on the committee that to the 

 extent this develops and the Urban Coalition believes it is an effort 

 to gut the original Act, we would oppose such legislation. 



However, I say that optimistic that we will be able to work with 

 the members of this committee and the other stakeholders to seek 

 changes consistent with the principles that we have put before you 

 today, and with the result being legislation that can enjoy the sup- 

 port of urban California before we are done. Again, I would thank 

 you for the opportunity to present the Urban Coalition position 

 today and will be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate 

 time. 



