177 



as well. The long-term Bay/Delta process, for example, was supposed to have published its initial 

 recommendations by the end of 1995. It now will be lucky to have issued them by the end of 1996. 



What the CVP conlraclors, now supported by the Chairman of this subcommittee, have done is to 

 introduce a bill which seeks only to improve their position vis-a-vis others affected by the CVP, 

 especially those who have environmental concerns. It doesn't even make any pretense about being a 

 consensus bill or about addressing the interests of all Califomians. As the attached critique 

 demonstrates, the bill is all "take" and no "give." It may serve the nanow interests of a few CVP 

 contractors, but it does not address the real future needs either of Calitomia's overall economy or of 

 its environment. 



Accordingly, the only signal we in the environmental community can take from this situation is that 

 the contractors are spoiling for a fight It is not a fight we sought, but it is one in which we 

 necessarily must engage. Hopefully, progress in other more consensus-oriented arenas will not be an 

 innocent casualty of the war that has now begun. Realistically, however, it is clear to me, as I have 

 already stated, that the prospects for building positively on the consensus developed last December 

 will continue to get bleaker the longer that we are forced to fight a rear-guard action here in 

 Washington, D.C. 



Mr. Chairman, thank you again for giving EDF and me personally the opportunity to testify, knowing 

 that we would necessarily be compelled to oppose your bill. It is one of the great hallmarks of our 

 political system that we allow, indeed encourage, debate on the important issues which engage us. 

 Hopefully, the debate in which we are now engaged will lead us to a better CVP for all who depend 

 on it for their livelihood and sustenance, be they farmers, city residents, or wild creatures. 



