[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 110 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page E 1397]]


                    CALIFORNIA WATER POLICY REFORMS

                                 ______


                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 10, 1995
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, rolling back the clock on 
crucial California water policy reforms will have three enormously 
unfortunate results: First, over 30 million residents of the largest 
and most diverse State will resume a divisive and costly war that has 
stifled economic development for over a quarter of a century; second, 
major improvements in resource management and protection--such as the 
landmark Bay-Delta accord--will be placed in extreme jeopardy; and 
third, the Nation's other 230 million taxpayers will continue to 
provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual subsidies to many of 
the largest and richest agribusiness interests in the world.
  Congress resolved these issues in 1992 when we passed, and President 
Bush signed, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act [CVPIA], Public 
Law 102-575. That law won broad support throughout California; urban 
residents get a fraction of the project's water under current 
contracts; 85 percent goes to irrigators; business interests; 
environmentalists; the recreational and sport fishing organizations; 
the commercial fishing industry; and newspapers throughout the State.
  The subsidized irrigators, who have enjoyed nearly exclusive claim to 
the Central Valley Project's subsidized benefits for decades, quite 
naturally opposed the CVPIA with a vengeance, as would any special 
interest told it must share taxpayer-developed resources more 
equitably. They tried to have the law overturned in the courts, but 
lost. Now, they are trying to start the war all over again in hopes of 
improving their ability to retain their special largesse.
  A handful of Members representing these subsidized irrigators has 
introduced H.R. 1906, which was written almost entirely by lobbyists 
and attorneys for California growers to set back the cause of water 
policy reform a quarter century. Repeal would assure these irrigators 
of indefinite domination of the water resources of California, with 
billions of dollars in water subsidies, for decades to come at the 
expense of all other interests in the State and U.S. taxpayers.
  Fifteen members of the California delegation have written to the 
President outlining our vigorous objections to this harmful 
legislation. Herewith is a recent editorial about H.R. 1906 that 
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I would be pleased to discuss 
these issues with you at any time.
           [From the San Francisco Chronicle, June 23, 1995]

                  Breaking the Peace in the Water Wars

       The long and destructive California water war, which was 
     quieted by a sensible legislative cease-fire three years ago, 
     is on the verge of full-scale resumption, thanks to the 
     unquenchable greed and incurable myopia of Central Valley 
     agricultural interests and their water carriers in Congress. 
     Unless Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer take a 
     firm stand against these troublemakers when their legislative 
     assault reaches the upper house, California could be swept 
     back into a political whirlpool that will threaten not only 
     the environment but the state's fragile economic recovery.
       The new declaration of war comes in the form of legislation 
     introduced this week by Representative John Doolittle and 
     other Central Valley representatives that seeks to overturn 
     the 1992 Central Valley Project Implementation Act, signed 
     into law by President Bush. That law brought badly needed 
     reform to an archaic and expensive system of subsidized farm 
     irrigation that had wreaked disaster on the aquatic 
     environment and nearly destroyed the commercial fishing 
     industry.
       Doolittle's rear-guard attack would ``reform'' those 
     reforms by, among other things: stripping them of virtually 
     all of the additional water that had been promised for fish 
     and wildlife restoration; eliminating a study of fisheries in 
     the San Joaquin River; restoring overly generous, subsidized, 
     40-year water delivery contracts to growers; reducing fees 
     for an environmental fund; scrapping a requirement for 
     doubling the salmon populations; and turning fish restoration 
     programs over to the state.
       Save San Francisco Bay Association director Barry Nelson 
     called the Doolittle bill ``the legislative equivalent of a 
     drive-by shooting,'' a statement that reflects the depth of 
     divisiveness this legislation could re-engender. Indeed, 
     until the Republicans captured Congress last November, a 
     productive if fragile process of cooperation was growing 
     among the state's competing water interests--farmers, 
     environmentalists and urban users.
       The main fruit of that consensus was last fall's voluntary 
     Bay-Delta Accord, which dealt with improving water quality 
     standards for fish and wildlife in the delta and bay in order 
     to meet Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act 
     requirements. But the Bay-Delta Accord was built on the 
     framework of the Central Valley Project reforms of 1992. If 
     those are gutted, the 1994 water quality accords and the 
     state water board's brand new water allocation plans would 
     become virtually meaningless.
       Senators Feinstein and Boxer represent the best hope for 
     disarming these unreconstructed water 
     warriors so that, one day, sensible policies and predictable 
     supplies may prevail in California.
     

                          ____________________