204 



immediate new costs added by the CVPIA to Ftiant Division water supplies amoimted to 

 something on the order of $15 per acre foot: the $6 Restoration Fimd charge applied to all 

 CVP water sold, the $4 Friant surcharge, and the approximately $5 to $7 increase associated 

 with dividing fixed operation and maintenance costs by a smaller water supply base as a 

 result of dedicating CVP supplies to the new (non-paying) CVP purposes of fish and wildlife. 

 The increases in cost are adversely affecting groundwater management decisions in the Friant 

 Division by putting the cost of surface water in excess of that typically encountered in 

 pimaping groundwater. In districts that operate groundwater conjunctive use programs, the 

 cost of obtaining water for recharge purposes can only be passed on to water users by way of 

 land assessments— property taxes— so that water users continue to take surface water rather 

 than turn to overdrafted groimdwater supphes for purely economic reasons. Water tolls are 

 thus limited to whatever the cost is to pump groimdwater. In some cases, as a result of the 

 CVPIA, the districts are now assessing their landowners at rates in excess of what the 

 coimties require for property taxes on improved land for all of their services. Needless to 

 say, but there is "hell to pay" for many of these district boards of directors from landowners 

 who do not understand that these increases in cost are beyond the control of the district. 



By li mitin g the Restoration Fimd contribution for the "in lieu of water" surcharge for the 

 Friant Division to $6 million per year and not applying the surcharge to the Friant supply 

 which is most typically used for groundwater recharge, you will be helping to stabilize the 

 water price to these conjunctive use districts and assure that decisions are based upon what is 

 good for the region on a long-term water management basis, as compared to the current 

 situation of decisions being made for short-term economic advantage. 



Contract Renewal 



One of the most potentially devastating provisions of the CVPIA that would gamer little, if 

 any, environmental benefit is the provision regarding the renewal of existing long-term water 

 service contracts. Not only did the CVPIA prescribe an interim renewal process which, by 

 virtue of its implementation to date, is clearly unreasonable, but it also injected the notion that 

 the Secretary of the Interior had some new level of discretion as to whether or not he or she 

 would renew these contracts in the future. The changes proposed by the CVPRA would 

 remedy this problem by insuring that the contracts for water service within the CVP are 

 handled in a manner consistent with contracts throughout the Reclamation West, namely that 

 the Secretary must renew such contracts upon the request of the contractor. The proposed 

 changes in the CVPRA will also assure that there will be a water supply on an ongoing basis. 

 It will re-establish that level of certainty which is needed to provide community growth and 

 economic viability to a region. Providing a right to renewal does not guaranty that future 

 terms and conditions of renewal, including price, will remain the same, nor will it provide 

 some form of federal right to waste water. It does, however, provide an improved 

 understanding of what these water contracts mean. 



