[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 THE FEDERAL COURT ORDER TO BLOCK IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY 
                    PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1992

  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, on Thursday, April 28, 1994, a Federal 
district court judge in California enjoined implementation of the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act pending completion of an 
environmental impact statement. I am quite concerned that this ruling 
is going to hurt virtually every water user in California.
  Congress passed the CVPIA to do two basic things: To restore some 
certainty to California's water supply, and to deliver some very basic 
protection to endangered fish and waterfowl. Under the act, for the 
first time, CVP farmers enjoy assured contract renewals, urban 
interests gain access to CVP water through voluntary water transfers, 
and fish and wildlife resources garner a minority share in available 
CVP supplies.
  Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior very specific directions 
on what to do, how to fund those actions, and precisely what kind of 
environmental impact reviews would be required. The whole point of the 
bill was to get things moving right away, not sometime down the road 
once a study was finished.
  Congress struck a careful and reasoned balance in the CVPIA among the 
competing needs of agricultural water contractors, urban residents, and 
fish and wildlife resources in California. With Thursday's decision, 
this carefully crafted balance has been replaced by chaos. Some 65 
pending contract renewals are now at risk. Urban users are barred from 
negotiating voluntary water transfer agreements. Environmental 
resources are denied their hard-won water supplies. Restoration funding 
will all but disappear.
  I deeply regret that big Central Valley agribusiness, led by the 
Westlands Water District, chose to bring this litigation and that the 
court sided with their claims. Westlands, in particular, has 
consistently fought even the most modest efforts to help California's 
environment and to bring some sense of fairness to the State's water 
system.
  Contaminated irrigation wastewater from Westlands caused severe 
environmental and wildlife damage at Kesterson National Wildlife 
Refuge. The resulting deaths of a multitude of waterfowl are takings 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And yet Westlands continues to 
resist taking financial responsibility for the cleanup of Kesterson--
estimated at $49.2 million--or contributing to the studies mandated by 
the Department of the Interior to document drainage contamination 
problems in the San Joaquin Valley and throughout the West.

  Although one of the last to become CVP water contractors, Westland's 
water use has resulted in increasing diversions from the Delta that 
have contributed to the listing of two stocks of fish under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Westlands farmers continue to illegally irrigate more than 47,000 
acres of land outside the State permitted place of use with more than 
120,000 acre-feet of CVP water.
  Westlands farmers pump 60,000 to 70,000 acre-feet of groundwater each 
year next to--out of--the Mendota Pool, dump it back into the pool, and 
get delivery credits from the Bureau of Reclamation. The credits allow 
Westlands to draw from the pool a second time, a double dip.
  GAO found that Westlands Water District farmers had exploited a 
loophole in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 by reorganizing its 
large farms operations--not otherwise entitled to federally subsidized 
water--into smaller, eligible components. Even though the smaller 
components continued to operate collectively as one large farm, the 
entire acreage was then eligible for cheap CVP water.
  Much of the water Westlands gets at low cost goes to grow crops that 
are subsidized or are in chronic oversupply, such as cotton.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record an 
editorial from the May 2, 1994, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle 
which portrays this ruling as ``the triumph of selfish cynicism over 
reform.''
  I sincerely, hope that, on review, this decision will be overturned. 
However, should an appellate court support the district court's 
decision to reward a few self-serving water barons, I will do whatever 
it takes to meet the needs of all Californians.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 1994]

                   Water Law Ruling Sets Back Reforms

       What took Republicans and Democrats and most of the diverse 
     interests of California years of hard negotiation and 
     compromise to create has been threatened by the single stroke 
     of a pen in the hands of U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger of 
     Fresno. His injunction last week against implementation of 
     the 1992 Central Valley Improvement Act represents a triumph 
     of selfish cynicism over democratic reform.
       As a direct result of the overbroad court ruling on behalf 
     of Central Valley agricultural interests, led by the powerful 
     Westlands Water District, nearly all of the critically 
     important reforms achieved by the landmarks water reform law 
     will be delayed indefinitely.
       Not only will fish and wildlife restoration efforts be 
     imperiled, but the ability of urban water districts to 
     acquire needed water transfers from willing sellers in the 
     valley may be stymied at a time when severe drought 
     conditions have returned to California. In effect, the water 
     future of California has been thrown into dangerous turmoil 
     just when the need for direction and predictability is 
     greatest.
       Who does all this disruption serve? It is not at all clear 
     that it will benefit even the heavily subsidized agricultural 
     irrigators of Westlands, who cynically used provisions of 
     environmental law to undermine environmental goals. If the 
     extremely broad injunction ordered by Judge Wanger--which 
     reaches well beyond what was sought by Westlands--is strictly 
     observed by resource officials, it could create havoc in the 
     valley itself, where 65 short-term, interim water contracts 
     are due to be awarded this year. If those contracts are 
     delayed, water districts could find themselves without water 
     next year--which is why many valley farmers have broken ranks 
     with the intransigent spoilers of the Westland Water 
     District.
       Westlands' opposition to the 1992 reforms is easy to 
     understand. As Representative George Miller, D-Martinez, the 
     principal author of the reforms, observed: ``That's business 
     as usual for them; they have tried to frustrate every effort 
     at ending their excessive use of water and their 
     multimillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies.''
       What is harder to understand is the judge's failure to 
     observe the clear congressional intent behind the water 
     reform law, which aimed at immediate implementation of fish 
     and wildlife restoration and mitigation measures, while 
     delaying other aspects of the reforms until an environmental 
     impact report is completed in 1995.
       In all likelihood, last week's ruling will be overturned on 
     appeal. In the meantime, though, environmental interests will 
     suffer, urban districts may bear unfair hardships, and 
     negotiations toward permanent water quality standards for the 
     San Francisco Bay and delta may be disrupted. Under no 
     circumstances should the anti-environmental cynics who have 
     cloaked themselves in environmental law be allowed to 
     benefit.

                          ____________________