|
<br />Utahns have agreed to pay 35% of the cost [and
<br />that] will eventually bring over $2B Into the federal
<br />treasury.... This is a substantial sum..., higher than
<br />has ever before been required for a federal
<br />reclamation project,' He added that this 'Iandmark'
<br />legislation includes environmental protection and
<br />enhancement provisions to guarantee minimum flows
<br />for 240 miles of Utah rivers and streams, and
<br />establish an ongoing mitigation and conservation fund
<br />financed by the state and federal governments and
<br />project beneficiaries. It also includes a 'falr and
<br />complete settlement of the water rights claims of the
<br />Ute tribe of eastern Utah by creating financial
<br />investment opportunities In lieu of costly and
<br />infeasible water development projects.'
<br />
<br />On the floor, Senator J. Bennett Johnston stated,
<br />'The bill does contain certain traditional water
<br />development features, but it is most notable for
<br />reflecting a serious commitment to protection and
<br />restoration of environmental values.' He criticized,
<br />Title XXXIV, which deals with the Central Valley
<br />Project In California, as 'deeply flawed.... I would find
<br />it very difficult to support an agreement in conference
<br />that does not insure meaningful reform of the Central
<br />Valley Project..... Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) added,
<br />"I do not support Senator [John] Seymour's [R-CAI
<br />bill. The inclusion of S. 2016 here does move the
<br />process of CVP reform one step forward, but...would
<br />represent a severe and unwarranted setback for the
<br />state of California. I expect a very different measure
<br />to emerge from negotiations with the House of
<br />Representatives.' Bradley specifically referred to CVP
<br />irrigation subsidies and the need to restore fish and
<br />waterfowl populations damaged by CVP operations.
<br />
<br />However, Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-WY)
<br />countered that Senator Bradley's criticisms,
<br />"Represent a particular view as to what California
<br />shouiddo and how California should look,.... He said
<br />the Committee reported the legislation introduced by
<br />Senator Seymour without amendment. 'That
<br />represented in my view a correct judgement that
<br />Senator Seymour's legislation was the only proposal
<br />which could secure a majority of the Committee.'
<br />California has since asked to negotiate a transfer of
<br />CVP facilities to the state ryvSW #933). According to
<br />Senator Wallop, 'If the Congress really wants to help
<br />California, it would transfer the project subject only to
<br />California agreeing to payoff the remaining allocable
<br />reimbursable costs of the project in accordance with
<br />
<br />the existing schedule. The federal government would
<br />be whole and California would have the flexibility to .
<br />manage its, and I repeat its, water for the benefit of
<br />all water users and the environment.. Senator Wallop
<br />attacked Senator Bradley's implication that the price
<br />should be the estimated present fair market value of
<br />the project ($3,8B), which is far more than the
<br />remaining allocable reimbursable costs. He used as
<br />an analogy .,..a home mortgage where the
<br />homeowner has repaid the amount he borrowed. but
<br />the mortgage company refuses to hand back the title
<br />and cancel the debt unless the homeowner now pays
<br />the full fair market value of the home.'
<br />
<br />According to Senator Seymour, S. 2016 would
<br />stabilize and augment riverflows to restore and
<br />enhance the natural production of anadromous fish
<br />and provide the immediate delivery of 380,000 acre-
<br />feet of water to fifteen national wildlife refuges and
<br />management areas of the Central Valley and over
<br />525,000 acre-feet annually by the year 2000. He
<br />criticized special interest groups "fixated" upon 1,5M
<br />acre-feet as a minimum amount necessary for fish
<br />and wildlife. 'This water would cost the state roughly
<br />$6B in lost economic activity.'
<br />
<br />In addition to Central Valley Project reforms, there
<br />are other controversial differences between the House .
<br />and Senate bills. A long and drawn out conference
<br />is likely. Conferees have not yet been appointed.
<br />
<br />Western Water Policy
<br />
<br />Title XXXI of H.R. 429 is S. 1228, the Western
<br />Water Policy Review Act, introduced by Senator Mark
<br />Hatfield. It establishes a 10-member, 5-year
<br />commission to study and evaluate western water
<br />policies in 17 reclamation states, plus Alaska and
<br />Hawaii, and recommend necessary changes. No
<br />attempt was made to expand the scope of the review.
<br />On the Senate floor, Hatfield referred to an
<br />observation by Senator Wallop stating that, 'The
<br />overwhelming scope of a review of national water
<br />policies may be sufficient to overburden the
<br />Commission and possibly negate any positive
<br />outcome.' Senator Wallop suggested regional water
<br />policy review commissions might better be able to
<br />'identity parochial problems and recommend plans
<br />more reflective of regional concerns.' Senator Hatfield
<br />agreed, referring to the Salmon Summit, and adding,
<br />'1 hope the Congress can learn from the model we
<br />are implementing today.'
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors .
<br />of member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
<br />Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, with Oklahoma as an associate member
<br />state.
<br />
|