49 



stand that south of the delta we have chronic water shortages, and 

 that the CVPIA in the context of conveyance problems south of the 

 delta essentially reallocated about 200 to 250,000 acre feet of water 

 once used for agriculture to refuge supplies. 



Not only did it reallocate water from agriculture for the ref- 

 uges — a direct reallocation, but it also prioritized the wetlands 

 used, capping their shortage provisions at 25 percent while agri- 

 culture can go down to as low as zero percent and did indeed go 

 down to 25 percent during part of the drought and as a result of 

 the ESA. 



I think what agriculture has done has acknowledged the impor- 

 tance of the Pacific Flyway and has always supported water for 

 wetlands. Essentially, what they are looking for is some balance 

 and reasonableness. They think that by capping the 25 percent 

 shortage provision to the refuges in drought years is reasonable. 



And this is also in the context of category four water which is 

 in addition to the ongoing level two water that we have capped the 

 shortages. And so what I think it is, it is an acknowledgement and 

 a confirmation that water for the wetlands is good and should be 

 maintained, and I think it is a reasonable approach. 



Mr. Farr. So I am not sure. Are you supporting the discretionary 

 approach or the mandatory approach? 



Mr. Nelson. The mandatory approach. 



Mr. Farr. OK. 



Mr. Nelson. In addition to that, let me say that we are working 

 with and have had developed good dialog with the refuge people 

 and anticipate continued discussions. 



Mr. Farr. In closing, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me, you 

 know, there is really a fairness issue, and that is if you are going 

 to be in a drought, everybody ought to have to sacrifice something. 

 And I think one of the ways you try to do that is bringing in best 

 water management practices as well. 



When agriculture is doing it, I am very proud of the fact that 

 California agriculture has almost led the world in it. I mean, Israel 

 came here and learned from us; went back there and improved on 

 it. But California was where water practices began, and we ought 

 to not lose sight of the fact that we need to continue to do that. 

 And hopefully then we will survive all kinds of droughts. 



I am lastly wanting to know about — it seems to me that we have 

 never utilized our water policy with our land policy. In California, 

 we have the Williamson Act. We have given tax breaks to agri- 

 culture as long as they commit themselves to remain in agricultur- 

 ally zoned lands. And yet we have never adjusted water pricing to 

 say that lands that are so dedicated ought to receive at least the 

 fairest or cheapest price for water because we know that they have 

 made a long-term commitment to be in agriculture. 



Maybe we ought to adjust, Mr. Chairman, in your bill where Mr. 

 Beard says we may need some structural water pricing changes. I 

 would like to see us build incentives in so that our land policy is 

 consistent with our water pricing policy. Any response? 



Mr. DooLiTTLE. The time is limited, gentlemen. 



Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure that reli- 

 ability for urban areas is part of that same equation on pricing. 

 Pricing should reflect reliability of supplies. 



