206 



Central Valley, especially in light of their water shoitages and groundwater overdraft 

 problems — it is just punitive. 



Some are now complaining that the CVPRA's deletion of tiered pricing from the CVPIA will 

 reduce contributions to the Restoration fund. Tiered pricing is either an effective 

 conservation tool or it is not. If it is, it will reduce the amount of water sold at the higher 

 priced tiers. Selling water at higher prices is what triggers additional contributions to the 

 Restoration Fimd under the CVPIA. Thus, if tiered pricing is as effective as its proponents 

 argue, it will never enhance revenues. Instead, it would potentially reduce them. Therefore, 

 to the extent proponents of tiered pricing argue that it generates additional revenue under the 

 CVPIA, they have admitted that it is not an effective water conservation device in all 

 instances. If tiered pricing is not an effective water conservation tool, there is no justification 

 for it in the CVPIA, other than as a hidden means to raise revenue. It clearly should never 

 have been relied upon as a source of revenue to the Restoration Fund and thus the elimination 

 of this otherwise punitive provision of the CVPIA will have no real effect on the availabOity 

 of revenues to the Restoration Fund. 



Water Conservation 



The CVPIA also requires the development and implementation of new water conservation 

 criteria which are to promote "the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable 

 by project contractors using best available cost-eifective technology and best management 

 practices." These criteria have been developed and imposed on contractors via mandated 

 conservation plans. Through those plans, the Bureau of Reclamation has insisted on the 

 imposition of tiered pricing at the district to grower level, even though tiered pricing at the 

 Bureau to district level is not to become effective until the long-term renewal of water service 

 contracts (which is still years away). Under color of the CVPIA, the Bureau has also sought 

 to impose a host of other measures on CVP districts in the name of conservation. 



The cxirrent conservation guidelines developed by the Bureau, as well as the Bureau's 

 implementation practices and policies, have been inflexible and time consuming, do not 

 reflect the langxiage of the CVPIA and go far beyond the law's legislative authorization. 

 Without any legal basis, the Bureau has even conditioned water deliveries to districts on the 

 Bureau's approval of those districts' conservation plans. Many districts have been subjected to 

 numerous and redundant layers of sometimes conflicting review; some have waited more than 

 18 months after submission to receive approval of their conservation plans. 



Moreover, some of the conservation requirements being imposed by the Bureau are punitive, 

 prohibitively expensive, and even contrary to sound water management practices. In many 

 instances, they do nothing to promote water conservations or provide environmental benefits. 

 Some conservation requirements imposed actually cause environmental harm (such as 

 increasing groundwater overdraft). In addition, the Bureau has forced districts to "prove the 

 negative" by demonstrating that a particular conservation practice is inappropriate, rather than 

 only requiring demonstrably effective and practical measures to be implemented. The goal 



