64 



ing most notably urban constituencies, big business constituencies, 

 environmental constituencies, Native Americans, commercisil and 

 sport fishermen, duck hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and others. 



The one group that felt left out, as we have seen indicated here 

 today, were the agricultural constituencies within the CVP. I would 

 turn to my testimony, however, now and go over what I think are 

 the three major benefits that the CVP agricultural interests got out 

 of the CVPIA in 1992. 



One, at the time the CVPIA was being debated, the complaints 

 heard loudest from the agricultural contractors of the CVP involved 

 the lack of certainty in CVP contracts, especially those surrounding 

 CVP contract renewal. In response, the CVPIA established firm 

 rules for long-term contract renewals. Remember, there was litiga- 

 tion going on at the time on contract renewal, and what the CVPLA 

 did was say, "OK For 25 more years, you are entitled to essentially 

 what you have had, with changes only as prescribed in the law." 



The second loudest set of complaints from the CVP contractors 

 involved their fears of an open-ended potential liability for meeting 

 apparently insatiable environmentsd water demands. In response, 

 the CVPIA established what the direct environmental water con- 

 tributions of the CVP would be, including an 800,000 acre foot an- 

 nual dedication of CVP yield to fishery restoration, a firm-up of 

 state and Federal refuge water supplies, and a confirmation of min- 

 imum releases to the Trinity River. 



Otherwise, however, the Act left to a system of voluntary envi- 

 ronmental water acquisitions and investments in environmentally 

 oriented hardware the job of meeting the Act's environmental ob- 

 jectives. 



Third, the CVPIA also produced a potentially huge economic ben- 

 efit to the farmers who make up the CVP's core constituency by es- 

 tablishing the right, not just of the water district contractors but 

 of their farmer constituents, voluntarily to transfer water at a prof- 

 it. It did that at the same time though that it also raised their 

 water rates by $6 an acre foot in the case of agricultural water 

 users and $12 in the case of urban water users, that increment to 

 go to the Restoration Fund. 



Let me say in comment on earlier testimony today, this was an 

 effort to increase the property rights in water in the state among 

 those who would have the greatest incentive to conserve it if they 

 also had the right to sell it. That is the farmers and growers and 

 ranchers on the ground. 



What troubles me about what I heard from Dan Nelson and Tim 

 Quinn too, for that matter, although he wasn't quite as aggressive 

 on this, is that they want to go backwards. They want to say, no, 

 ranchers are not responsible; shouldn't be allowed to own water 

 rights in this sense; shouldn't have a property right in water even 

 within the contract limitation; this power should reside in the dis- 

 trict, not in the individual farmer. That, it seems to me, is incon- 

 sistent with the whole trend of American resource policy, conserv- 

 ative revolution in American political life in a whole number of 

 areas, and ought to be resisted. 



As I noted, the CVPIA was the product of two years of intense 

 legislative maneuvering and compromise. 



