CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON vVATER 

ANTI POWER RESOURCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1906 

A BILL TO AMEND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

20-370CC"" 

JULY 20, 1995---WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendem of Documenls. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-047803-0 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, wuisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washlngton 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JA.~S B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STlJIIDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRA."lli: PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californil\ 

CARLOS A ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, CaiiforrJa 

DANIEL VAL K!SH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk 

JOJ-L'l LAVIRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

8UBCOMMI'ITEE ON WATER A."'D POWER RESOURCES 

JOHN T. DOOLITTI,E, California, Chairman 

JA.~S V. HANSEN, Utah PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado GEORGE MILLER, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

WES COOLEY, Oregon BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas SAM FARR, California 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel 

VALERIE WEST, Professional Staff 

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held July 20, 1995 .................................................................................... . Statement of Members: 

Bradley, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from New Jersey ................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Condit, Hon. Gary A., a U.S. Representative from California ..................... . DeFazio, Peter, a U.S. Representative from Oregon ................................... .. Doolittle, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources ............................... .. Fazio, Hon. Vic, a U.S. Representative from California .............................. .. Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ........................ . Miller, Hon. Gt:orge, a U.S. Representative fr:om Californ:.\a ... : .................. .. Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a U.S. Representative from Cahforrua .............. .. Radanovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California .............. . Riggs, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Representative from California ......................... . Thomas, Hon. William M., a U.S. Representative from California ............. . Statement of Witnesses: 

Bay-Delta Urban Coalition (prepared statement) ......................................... . Beard, Daniel P., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department 

of the Interior ............................................................................................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Brower, Charles D.N., Chairman, Native Migratory Bird Working Group 

(prepared statement) ................................................................................... . Central Valley Project Water Association (prepared statement) ................ .. Dickman, Dennis, General Manager, Calaveras Public Power ~ency; 

A~~n~;~~~a~~lst~i:ie~~e~~:..~~-~~~-~: .. ~.~~~-~~~ .. ~~~-~ .... ~:~.~ Graff, Thomas J., Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund ............ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kerry, Jeff, Vice President, Grassland Water District ................................ .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . McCovey, Pliny, Sr., Vice Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe of California ..... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Moss, Richard M., General Manager, Friant Water Users Authority ......... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Nelson, Daniel G., Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority ...................................................................................................... . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (prepared statement) ............................................................................................................. . Patterson, Ro~er, Department of the Interior ............................................... . 

Q~~· oP&~~r!;·c~to:l'a ~~~~~~: .. ~.~~~-~~~: .. ~~~~~~~.~~~~~ .. ~~.~~~ .. ~~~~ Smith, Robert, Assistant General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water 

District .......................................................................................................... . Somach, Stuart L., Esq., DeCuir & Somach ................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Thomas, Roger, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association .............. . Trinity County (CA) Board of Supervisors (prepared statement) ................ . Additional material supplied: 

Text of H.R. 1906 ............................................................................................. . Communications submitted: 

Dixon, Stan (Humboldt County): Letter of July 18, 1995, to Hon. John 

Doolittle ........................................................................................................ . 

(Ill) 

Page 

1 

4 

142 

241 

3 

1 

10 

6 

3 

4 

67 

82 

8 

153 

30 

149 

220 

243 

222 

63 

171 

65 

183 

85 

209 

68 

201 

35 

168 

193 

30 

32 

34 

87 

215 

84 

145 

93 

229 
IV 

Communications submitted--Continued 

K~ifo~will/J::~e~~.~~~ .. ~:. .. ~~~~-~: ... ?.~:~ .. ~.~~~ .. ~~ .. ~~::. .. ~?.: .. :~~~: Miller, Hon. George: Letter of August 2, 1995, to Hon. John T. Doolittle 

with attachments ......................................................................................... . Neville, Ted: Letter of July 17, 1995, to Wally Herger ................................ . Winther, John L. (Delta Wetlands): Letter of July 18, 1995, to Chairman 

John T. Doolittle .......................................................................................... . 

Page 

147 

234 

148 

232 
THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT 

IMPROVEMENT ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOOLITTLE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTE 

ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on WatE:r and Power Resources will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to 

hear testimony on H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform 

Act of 1995. Under Rule 6(f) of the Committee Rules, any oral 

opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and 

the ranking minority member. This will allow us to hear from our 

witnesses sooner and to help members keep to their schedules. 

Therefore, if other members have statements, they can be included 

in the hearing record. 

The Central Valley Project is a major Federal water project encompassing two of California's major watersheds, the Sacramento 

River to the north and the San Joaquin River to the south. It is 

a system of 20 dams and reservoirs with a total storage capacity 

of over 12 million acre feet. It provides irrigation to approximately 

3 million acres of farmland. The CVP provides municipal and industrial water to more than 2 million Californians. The CVP also 

has the capacity to produce 2,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity. 

In 1992, Congress passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CVPIA. Indeed, Senator Bradley, Mr. Miller, Mr. Beard, 

Mr. Graff, all of whom we will hear from today, were major proponents in the adoption of the CVPIA. The stated intent of the Act 

was to improve the way water was managed in California. Experience has shown that some of the provisions worked; others did not. 

H.R. 1906 is needed to f1x the provisions that aren't working. The 

testimony at our April 18 hearing in Sacramento demonstrated the 

need for change. The testimony we hear today will further highlight critical areas where reforms are needed. We have heard from 

virtually every group affected by the CVPIA that it is not working. 

The only question is how to f1x it? 

(1) 
2 

While some problems can be fiXed administratively, some cannot. 

It is of interest that the Bureau did not pursue serious administrative reforms until legislative reforms were undertaken. The Central 

Valley Project Reform Act, CVPRA, will preserve what must be 

preserved in the CVPIA, but it will also reform what must be 

changed to bring stability and common sense to the management 

of the Central Valley Project. 

The CVPIA mandated that 800,000 acre feet of yield from the 

Central Valley Project be primarily dedicated to fish and wildlife. 

The CVPRA reserves the 800,000 acre feet of CVP water for the environment but improves efficiency by providing that after meeting 

Fish and Wildlife requirements any portion of the 800,000 acre feet 

can be reused, if possible, by agricultural or urban interests. 

The legislation underscores the principles of the December 15, 

1994, Bay-Delta agreement by clarifying that all CVP water used 

to meet Endangered Species Act and Bay-Delta water quality obligations will be credited toward the 800,000 acre feet. The CVPIA 

required the Bureau to do a projectwide environmental impact 

statement and prohibited the long-term renewal of existing contracts until the EIS was completed. Unfortunately, it will probably 

take at least 10 years to complete that process. 

The CVPRA replaces the costly and unnecessary series of successive two-year interim renewals of existing water supply contracts 

and instead provides for a single interim renewal until the PElS 

is completed. The CVPIA established a redundant Federal program 

to double anadromous fish in the Central Valley. Unfortunately, it 

targeted two species for recovery that are in conflict. One feeds on 

the other; not a very reasonable goal. The CVPRA replaces this dubious goal with a requirement that the CVP participate in the larger and more realistic ongoing state anadromous fish recovery program which seeks to restore salmon and steelhead. 

The CVPIA provided firm water supplies to wildlife refuges identified in the Act. The CVPRA maintains the current CVPIA obligation to reduce refuge supplies by no more than 25 percent because 

of drought or other conditions but requires the development of efficient water management practices for refuges and clarifies that refuge reductions will be imposed whenever shortages are imposed on 

CVP contractors within the same division. 

The CVPIA requires the Secretary to complete the Trinity River 

Flow Evaluation Study by September 30, 1996, but does not submit 

the science or the Secretary's subsequent decision to public review. 

The CVPRA maintains the study but simply requires that the Secretary open the studies and data for public review and any new 

instream flow requirement through rulemaking which allows for 

notice, public comment, and judicial review. It takes a common 

sense approach and requires that any instream flow regimes vary 

according to hydrologic and reservoir storage conditions. 

The CVPIA established a restoration fund. The CVPRA maintains the restoration fund but improved flexibility by increasing the 

funding that can be spent on physical fiXes already authorized by 

the CVPIA. 

H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995, was 

introduced with strong bipartisan support from many members of 

this committee and several of the members you will indeed hear 
3 

from today. It is time I believe for this kind of a common sense 

change represented by the CVPRA. And the Chair will now recognize the ranking member for any statement he may wish to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the Chairman, and although Oregon's principal interest in this is to make certain there are no proposals cropping forth to supplement your water supply from our state, I realize this is a major issue in California, and I would at this point 

yield to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Miller, and cede 

him my time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFazio, for 

yielding this time. Two and a half years ago, the Congress overwhelmingly approved and President Bush signed into law the 

Central Valley Improvement Act to address the severe inequities 

and failures associated with the operation of the Central Valley 

Project. 

The law was designed to reform water policy designed over 50 

years ago when California was a very different place. We had a 

lengthy and a very vigorous debate. Not surprisingly, those who 

long enjoyed the massive subsidies and supplies of the Central Valley Project fought to retain their special privileges against the 

needs of over 20 million other Californians. 

The old order overwhelmingly lost that debate. Reform was demanded-reform in purpose, in distribution, in management, and 

in financing. Over the past two years, we have begun the effort to 

push those reforms into place. We have already seen major benefits. Last December, the comprehensive Federal-state Bay-Delta 

agreement was finally negotiated. Standard and Poor's has upgraded state bonds in response to unprecedented progress on ending our state's divisive water wars. 

H.R. 1906 is brought to you by those who want to reopen the 

war. It was drafted by those who have bitterly fought all efforts to 

modernize water policy and bring it into conformity with our national goals on the environment, on economic growth, on jobs, and 

on deficit reduction. They are back for one more bite at the apple. 

The authors of this legislation do not speak for all Californians. 

Indeed, on the same day that eight Californians introduced this 

bill, 15 joined in a letter supporting the Central Valley Improvement Act and opposed sweeping amendments that would alter the 

goals and policies of the law. There is no consensus behind this bill. 

Changes can always be justified if they improve our ability to 

meet the goals of the policy. The Administration is working to address legitimate concerns through a rulemaking process and other 

administrative actions. But let us be very clear. H.R. 1906 is not 

about fixing the CVPIA. It is about destroying it-repealing the reforms and giving back control of our water to subsidize agriculture 

at the expense of our cities, our suburbs, our businesses, our recreation, our commercial fishing interest, and the environment, and 

millions of taxpayers who subsidize this project. 
4 

I look forward to these hearings, and I have no doubt we will 

demonstrate that there is no consensus in support of this sweeping 

repeal of the Central Valley Improvement Act as represented in the 

bill before us, H.R. 1906. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The following statement was submitted for the record:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1906, the 

Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995 (CVPRA). I appreciate you providing this 

Subcommittee with the opportunity to review and discuss the CVP reform bill-i>f 

which I am an original cosponsor-and look forward to the testimony of our wit- nesses. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, P.L. 102-575-the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)-made a substantial number of changes to the implementation 

of California's major Federal reclamation project, the CVP. Among its IIllijor provi- sions, the CVPIA mandated that 800,000 acre feet of yield from the CVP be dedicated exclusively for fish and wildlife purposes. It also established the CVP restoration fund, mandated several specific construction activities designed to mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife, and required the Bureau of Reclamation to do a systemwide Environmental Impact Statement. These changes were in an effort to achieve 

the stated goal "to protect, restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the 

Central Valley of California while maintaining the productivity of other project pur- poses." 

It has now been over two years since Congress passed the CVPIA. In that time 

it has become abundanti/' clear that, as written, this law designed to "improve" the 

CVP is itself in need of 1mproving. H.R. 1906-I firmly believe-is a sound legislative prOJ?OSal designed to do just that-preserve the integrity of the CVPIA but 

achieve 1ts goals in a more realistic and workable manner. Again, Mr. Chairman, 

I applaud your efforts in introducing this bill and will enthusiastically work to both 

improve it and move it through the lejSislative process. I understand that a number of enVlronmental organizations, and their supporters in Congress, are opposed to this measure. Undoubtedly, we will hear a great deal 

from them today and in the future as we debate this bill. Mr. Chairman, there they 

go again. I have heard from these groups that this proposal is an effort to repeal the critical features of the CVPIA. Nothing could be further from the truth. This 

bill disrupts neither the 800,000 acre feet set-aside for wildlife nor the efforts of the 

CVPIA to double the number of anadromous fish in California. Instead, it serves to 

streamline and clarify these requirements. Simply stated, it will make the CVPIA an all around more workable law. 

It has been said that this proposal will derail the fragile Bay/Delta agreement of 

December 15, 1994. This is yet another falsehood. The fact of the matter is, this 

proposal is intended to be consistent with the environmental requirements under 

the Bay/Delta Accord. If adopted, this proposal will meet the environmental benefits more quickly and efficiently than the status quo. Given that the environmental extremists have already filed a lawsuit against this 

historic agreement, maybe it is they who should ask themselves who is more likely 

to jeopardize the Bay/Delta agreement. 

Mr. Chairman, those who claim that this legislation would eviscerate the CVPIA are dead wrong. The only thing divisive about this measure is the false rhetoric that 

is being tossed around in OJ?position to this well meaning proposal. 

Again, I am proud to be m support of H.R. 1906 and look forward to today's testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. We have some of our distinguished 

members as witnesses, and first on the list is the Honorable Bill 

Bradley, U.S. Senator. Senator Bradley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BRADLEYt A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW JERSEY 

Senator BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today and share 

my thoughts on H.R. 1906. As one of the authors of the Central 

Valley Improvement Act, I still retain a strong interest in all. bills 

and. rego..1lations that affect the implementatior: of this a.•·d I 
5 

maintain a regular oversight role and have dedicated a sizable 

amount of my own effort and staff resources as well as outside resources to oversee the implementation of this Act. 

The CVPIA was enacted, as Congressman Miller has said, to 

modernize the Central Valley Project and produce a balanced 

project which yields benefits for agricultural users, for urban users, 

for the environment, for state and local government, for commercial 

and sport fishing, and for Native Americans. 

But H.R. 1906 I think threatens to upset that careful balance by 

tilting the scales in the favor of agriculture and, unfortunately, reopening hostilities in what I came to learn over four or five years 

of very intense investigation, hearing from over 100 witnesses and 

official testimony, and hearing from hundreds of others in onfield 

trips as well as discussions in my own office, are the longstanding 

California water wars. And this bill endangers the fragile piece 

that was established with its passage in 1992 and the implementation of the Bay-Delta standards negotiated last December. 

Mr. Chairman, before passage of the CVPIA in 1992, the Central 

Valley Project was a project in crisis. The way it functioned was 

a relic of an earlier era which emphasized delivery of irrigation 

water at the expense of other interests such as the water needs of 

urban dwellers or fish and wildlife. 

The CVPIA helped resolve that crisis by promoting water conservation. I mean, if 85 percent of the water in California is used 

for agriculture, if you simply saved-conserved 10 percent, you 

would double the amount of water available for commercial and 

residential uses in the state. 

So we tried to promote water conservation. We tried to promote 

voluntary water transfers to nonagricultural users to give them the 

right to do that and water for fish and wildlife. At the same time, 

the CVPIA continued to guarantee the vast majority of the water 

of the Central Valley Project for irrigated agriculture under 25-year 

contracts and continuing at subsidized rates. 

It is interesting just to note parenthetically that the rough subsidy-the repayment is about 230 million on a $3.7 billion project 

which amounts to a 95 percent Federal subsidy. We might have 

nicked that down a point or two in 1992 but not much. 

Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for changes in the CVPIA and 

that is my basic message today to the subcommittee. The Act is 

working, and it has worked in both wet and dry years. Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle, for example, reports that California's 

salmon population has exploded this year to legendary proportions. 

And although this has been a very wet year, I believe a part of that 

story is attributable to the innovations contained in the CVPIA. 

According to California waterfowl experts, the four Sacramento 

Valley wildlife refuges, allocated firm water supplies for the first 

time under this Act, experienced a 20 percent increase in waterfowl 

usage during the 1993-1994 water year over previous years. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of rushing to change the CVPIA, the Congress needs to adopt a few of the old-time virtues starting with patience and cooperation. How can we begin unraveling a bill that is 

less than three years old which is still in a relatively early stage 

of implementation? 
6 

According to the Department of Interior, numerous rules and 

regulations implementing the statute remain to be finalized. Appropriately, the rulemaking process and not new legislation should 

be the forum for resolving concerns about the CVPIA. In fact, we 

will not even know if there are flaws in the CVPIA itself until the 

rulemaking is completed. 

Patience is not the only virtue. Cooperation is the other. For example, cooperation is the key to the Bay-Delta Accord, agreed to 

last December, which has all the primary stakeholders on California water issues working together to solve the problems of the San 

Francisco Bay Estuary. 

Mr. Chairman, that is the key, keeping all the parties around the 

table to work out the problems. The existence of the CVPIA was 

crucial to that success, and I think, unfortunately, H.R. 1906 would 

undermine the agreement even before it has been fully implemented. 

Mr. Chairman, just two concluding comments. I am troubled by 

the fact that some member3 are attempting to take apart the 1992 

Act piece by piece on other bills such as the attempt through the 

budget process to shut down the San Joaquin study before it 

reaches its conclusions on the feasibility of restoring the river. 

And I understand who wants to have this done, and I understand 

its purpose, and I understand why it is being done. And I assure 

you that any legislative alteration to the CVPIA will receive very 

strict scrutiny when it comes to the U.S. Senate. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1906 is the wrong bill I think at the 

wrong time. It imperils the Bay-Delta agreement which gives us 

the chance to work out water issues at the state level, and, instead, 

Congress should be encouraging cooperative resolution for these 

difficult resource issues. 

Revisiting CVPIA at this early stage, and, you know, I was a fundamental player, author, but no one's work is perfect, and I am not 

saying that at some point you might not want to look at it, but at 

this early stage, I think it sends exactly the wrong message to 

those who look to Congress for certainty, for fairness, and for good 

common sense. And I hope the committee would keep those views 

in mind as you deliberate. 

I thank you for the opportunity. I have extensive comments on 

the specifics of the bill, but I felt in my limited time I would simply 

like to register and argue for patience and cooperation, keeping 

people around the table, not rushing in preemptively and reopening 

the water wars of California. 

[Statement of Senator Bradley may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Thank you. The Chair's intent is to take each of 

the members, and then we will open it up for questions following 

the last member to testify. Mr. Herger from California is our next 

witness. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for the opportunity to testify before your committee on this very important 

legislation. Mr. Chairman, as you know, nearly two-thirds of our 

state's water in California originates in northern California. Shasta 
7 

and Whiskeytown Lakes in Shasta County and Trinity Lake in 

Trinity County are the primary sources of water that is utilized 

throughout the state for a variety of purposes including recreation, 

agriculture, fish and waterfowl habitat, industrial and municipal 

use, and hydroelectric power generation. The majority of this use 

takes place within the Central Valley Project. 

Mr. Chairman, everyone in this chamber is painfully aware that 

California's water supply is often stretched to the very limits of its 

utility, particularly in drought years. We also realize that our 

water is subject to longstanding contractual and historical rights, 

some extending as far back as the last century, long before the 

Central Valley Project was built. In addition, we have an obligation 

to maintain stream flows in our rivers that would support viable 

fish populations. 

Many of my constituents have expressed to me their concern that 

under current law recreational use of our streams and reservoirs 

are not given adequate priority or protection. My district is also 

emphatic that water use rights, specifically area-of-origin rights, be 

honored in this or any other legislation affecting North State 

water. 

Furthermore, residents of Trinity County have a deep concern 

that the 340,000 acre feet floor established for the Trinity River 

under the CVPIA be maintained and that recommendations for future flow regimes established by the Secretary of Interior be given 

fair, apolitical treatment so that ongoing efferts to foster a viable 

salmon population in the river can continue. 

It is imperative that we fully consider these concerns during our 

deliberations on this bill. Our final product must maximize efficiency, honor long-held water rights, and provide adequate protec- tion for salmon populations in the Trinity River. In this regard, I 

wish to thank the Chairman and the committee for your ongoing 

assistance and cooperation in addressing these crucially important 

issues. 

Several provisions in this bill improve the efficiency of the CVP, 

thereby helping to stabilize water levels in our North State reservoirs. For example, the bill clarifies the original intent of Congress that the 800,000 acre feet dedicated under CVPIA to environmental improvements be used both to meet ESA objectives and satisfy the requirements or the Bay-Delta agreement, thereby eliminating confusion which would result in unmandated water allocation which exceed the levels needed for responsible management of 

the environment. 

The bill also maximizes the use of CVPIA water by requiring 

that portions of the 800,000 acre feet that have already served 

their environmental objectives be reused for other purposes. Furthermore, it improves the use of water for waterfowl habitat by requiring the Department of Interior to develop and implement improved management and conservation standards on wildlife refuges. 

Finally, by continuing authorization for the temperature control 

device at Shasta Dam, it makes management of Shasta Lake for 

downstream temperatures more efficient. I also wish to acknowledge the committee's cooperation regarding the Trinity River provisions in the bill and express my great appreciation for the Chair-
8 

man's commitment to address issues that the bill does not yet cover 

but which, as I have already indicated, are extremely important to 

those who I represent. These include area-of-origin rights and recreational uses. In my conversations with the Chairman, you have 

assured me that both these issues will be given utmost consideration by the committee. 

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Chairman and the committee 

again for the great work you have done thus far on this bill. I look 

forward to working closely with you in the weeks ahead to complete 

our work and ultimately pass this legislation through the House. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to my written remarks, I wish to submit 

for the record a number of statements prepared by county and local 

officials in my district. Thank you. 

[Statements of officials may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Bill Thomas 

from California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1906, and I. would ask that my 

written testimony be made a part of the record in its entirety. 

I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey's testimony based on 

his four or five years of involvement on this issue. I have been in 

California over 50 years. I have been in the San Joaquin Valley 

over 25 years. I have represented people in that area for over 16 

years, and for the last eight months or so, I have been working 

with Central Valley Project water users trying to identify, develop 

solutions to problems that have arisen as a consequence of the socalled Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. And I want 

to for just a couple of minutes shed some light on what H.R. 1906 

is truly about and dispel some of the misinformation that is being 

circulated. 

In contrast to the revisionist history one hears from certain interest groups and even members, the 1992 Act was not some widely 

accepted, wildly popular piece of legislation. It wasn't something 

that Californians had a significant amount of input in. The facts 

reveal a good deal of old-fashioned legislative arm twisting, as you 

might expect. 

The 1992 Act had project authorizations galore. It had projects 

for states like Utah, Wyoming, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota. All 

of them had an interest in making sure that that bill passed because it was structured for that purpose. Indian water right disputes were resolved in that Act. The National Historic Preservation 

Act was amended by the bill. Who wants to vote against something 

like that? 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 for California was squirreled away in the 34th title of a bill that few felt they 

had time to review. Remember, it was October 5, 1992. People 

wanted to get away, break that session, and go home for the election. 

Also contrary to what you may hear from special interest groups 

outside the San Joaquin Valley, H.R. 1906 is not a travesty of the 

legislative process. The bill itself reflects the ideas and interests of 
9 

Central Valley Project contractors. It was not written by lobbyists, 

as some would assert, but by water users in the San Joaquin Valley who tried to include municipal water users and environmental 

groups in the process. I know this to be a fact because my chief legislative assistant, 

Bob Winters, worked directly and personally for over six months on 

eight drafts of this legislation with water valley users and their 

representatives. In fact, I spent six months pushing the principals 

to work faster so we could reach this day today, Mr. Chairman. It 

is an odd situation when Members of Congress are faulted for actually asking the people affected by laws for ideas to make their life 

less complicated and the law more equitable. 

Finally, I want to make it clear that at no time did the people 

who I worked with try to promote a repeal of the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act of 1992. In fact, I made that a sine qua 

non of our discussions about changes. I am sure some folks want 

to try to turn back the clock, but that was not the direction of any 

discussions that we had with any of the principals involved. I don't 

think it is prudent, and I don't think it is necessary. 

Everyone in the room needs to understand that the water users 

and the members who are supporting H.R. 1906 are not trying to 

reclaim the 800,000 acre feet of water the 1992 bill took from agriculture or to prevent other environmental improvements in the 

1992 bill from continuing to be enacted. What we are all concerned 

about is the lack of clarity left behind by the 1992 law and some 

of the unnecessarily punitive things that it continues to permit. 

For example, no one is certain of the amount of water the 1992 

Act may ultimately strip from the farm community because a variety of ways to keep claiming water can be found under the text, 

making lenders reluctant to loan to a valley farm operation, although I must say based upon the change in the majority of Congress, we may have less reluctance if we can create some certainty. 

But, frankly, if the people who were the authors and the majority 

at the time this bill was written were still in power, you would continue to have a real concern about the way in which all of these 

triggers that were embedded in the bill were going to be pulled. 

For example, the Act requires the Bureau of Reclamation to keep 

studying restoration of anadromous fish runs in the San Joaquin 

River even though the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, 

himself has stated he does not view putting water back into the 

river to restore fish runs as reasonable or prudent. 

For example, the Act provides for a series of short interim contracts while environmental reviews are conducted and, once the 

studies end, a guarantee of a single contract of no more than 25 

years' length, making water supplies uncertain and, once again, 

discouraging capital from being made available to farmers in the 

valley. 

In the 1992 law, instead of permitting the Secretary to choose to 

spend 100 percent of the funds from the restoration fund on fish 

screens and other projects authorized by the '92 Act, which would 

improve salmon and steelhead survival, the Secretary can only use 

33 percent of the funds for these projects. 

Now, H.R. 1906 was designed to address these kinds of problems 

in a way that is being intentionally misdescribed by individuals 
10 

and groups who want the water for their own goals. We are not denying the Secretary power to use restoration funds to buy water for 

projects, but we do think he should be able to use all the restoration money for projects including those specified in the 1992 bill or 

other purposes that get us the most environmental improvement 

for the dollar. We are not content to live with the suggestion that 

the San Joaquin River study ought to be completed because it is 

just a study. We know what Secretary Babbitt believes the outcome 

should be and see no reason to waste more money on a known outcome. 

We are not cutting off water for wildlife refuges as represented. 

That is completely incorrect. What H.R. 1906, Mr. Chairman, does, 

as you well know, allows water supplies to refuges to be reduced 

by only 25 percent during droughts. Farmers are still subject to the 

law which allows Interior to cut their water supplies by as much 

as 100 percent. 

Perhaps most important, we want to provide clear legislative 

guidance to the Department of Interior on the 1992 law because 

the legislative history and guidelines issued by the Bureau of Reclamation since 1992 are not clear. Congress should legislate clearly 

so we won't have to trust bureaucrats who are not elected by the 

people. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on this legislation because, as you well know, it is crucial to California's future. 

Agriculture is the foundation on which my district is largely built. 

The only way farm families can continue to grow the crops that 

people want and provide the jobs that Central Valley residents 

need is to revise the 1992 law so that it provides water for wildlife 

without disrupting the lives of those who have worked, saved, and 

built on the economic promise the Central Valley Project represents. I believe very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 1906 

makes those kinds of revisions. 

I want to thank the Chairman and other members of this committee, both Republicans and Democrats, for their leadership in 

producing what I think is an eminently reasonable compromise. It 

brings the pendulum back to the middle and hopefully will stop the 

pendulum swings dealing with California water. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. I thank the gentleman. Our next witness is Mr. 

Vic Fazio from California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief and to the point. 

First, let me thank you for having this hearing so we all have a 

chance to air our views on this measure and, frankly, on the underlying law it seeks to amend because I don't think we had enough 

input on the specifics of this legislation when it was passed in the 

last Congress. 

By balancing all interests in a fair and unbiased fashion, the result of this effort can be I think a bill that is both credible and 

broadly supported, one that reinforces a commitment to the many 

objectives of the CVPIA; not in every instance, but to many of 

them. 
11 

First, I support this measure, and I want to clarify why I feel 

there is strong need for legislation to reform the CVPIA. The Administration admits there are problems with it. The issue is not 

whether or not to address them but how and when. It is clear to 

me that what Congress intended when it first passed this bill is not 

being adequately followed. 

The Administration believes that many of these problems have 

the potential to be addressed within the Bureau of Reclamation 

without Congress having to take legislative action. They believe it 

is too early to begin tampering with a law that is two and a half 

years old. 

My question to the Department of Interior is if they could have 

taken care of these problems administratively, why haven't they 

done so in the ample amount of time they have already been provided? My constituents who work with this law have simply lost 

patience. 

There is no justification for not attempting to reach consensus on 

how the underlying problems in the CVPIA should be addressed. 

The time has come, and statutory language is needed to make sure 

that the intent of Congress is fully understood this time around. 

Nothing is to be gained by allowing any uncertainty to continue 

since it is generally acknowledged that clarity is needed on many 

points. 

For example, the Administration's view is reflected in the BayDelta Accord, and the drafting of this bill are nearly identical in 

the accounting of the 800,000 acre feet of water to help the CVP 

meet the anadromous fish doubling goal. Why not end two and a 

half years of speculation and controversy and write it into law? 

As someone who represents a great number of water users living 

under this uncertainty and who has made every effort to reach out 

to the Administration and to work out these issues of disagreement, I see no justification for allowing this situation to continue 

any longer. We have an opportunity to put the project on stable 

footing with the adoption of H.R. 1906. 

I know some environmental groups are concerned that this reform bill will undermine the Bay-Delta Accord, and I think it is important as we go through this process to put this concern to rest. 

It is certainly not my intent or the intent I believe of the other cosponsors of this measure to jeopardize the integrity of this carefully 

crafted agreement. 

The CVP has undergone greater scrutiny and been subjected to 

all sorts of special rules and requirements that no other Federal 

Bureau of Reclamation project has been required to comply with. 

From unique and confusing water conservation standards to complex water transfer requirements that actually have impeded logical transfers, to shorter and less secure contracts-the list goes 

on-we are creating complicated and uncertain environments both 

for agriculture, for water conservation, and any other broadened 

purposes of the CVPIA. 

I think it is time to equalize the playing field so that all Californians benefit and know where they stand. This bill is a good first 

step to bringing these issues to the table, putting them through 

legislative review, and clarifying what improvements can and 

should be made to the improvement of the improvement Act. 
12 

What this reform action should not do is gut the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act. It should make it workable. One way to 

do that is by bringing stability to contract renewals which have 

been even more difficult for growers, making it harder for them to 

plan for future crop production and infrastructure payments. As recent experience has taught us, conflict over contract renewals has 

created a distrust of the government's intention in fairly implementing the CVPIA. 

I am most particularly concerned also that we recognize the special water right status of the Sacramento River water settlement 

contracts, those with prior riparian rights before Shasta Dam was 

built. I worked very hard to ensure that their concerns were addressed in the original CVPIA, but those concerns have not been 

respected by the Federal agencies. Without a doubt, it must be 

made clear that these contracts do not, and I repeat, do not come 

under the jurisdiction of this measure. That was never my understanding during negotiations on the CVPIA, and we need to remove 

any ambiguity over the intent. 

Mr. Chairman, one area that has not been addressed thus far in 

the bill is the matter of area of origin. I know you have an interest 

in this as well, and I look forward to working with you and the 

subcommittee generally to advance the basic precept. 

As you know, from the time the Federal Government assumed responsibility for constructing the CVP, assurances were repeatedly 

made to water users in the Sacramento Valley where the vast majority of the CVP water originates. Their needs would not be sacrificed to the needs of other water users elsewhere. That was the 

basic precept that everyone understood when the CVP was authorized. 

On October 12, 1948, for example, the Secretary of the Interior, 

J.A. Krug, substantiated former statements of Federal policy on the 

issue of area of origin in a speech in Oroville, California. He said, 

"Let me state clearly and finally, the Interior Department is fully 

and completely committed to the policy that no water which is 

needed in the Sacramento Valley will be sent out of it." 

The purpose of the CVP contemplated the export of only surplus 

water from the Sacramento Valley. On this point, there is no question. I hope this committee will not miss an opportunity to confirm 

this concept that was included in state law and yet only referenced 

in legislative debate when the CVP became a Federal project during the Depression. 

And I note that the CVP power users are not on the witness list 

today, and I think they need to be part of this process. Power users 

have paid 30 percent, more than their targeted contribution to the 

restoration fund. In addition, some provisions of the bill before us 

would reduce costs for water users and shift additional costs to 

power. These issues are important and need to be addressed, and 

the power users need to be at the table to help us do that. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I 

commend you for holding these hearings and for beginning this 

process to see the problems with the CVPIA resolved once and for 

all so that we can go forward in the common knowledge of what 

this law was intended to do with the sort of balance and, impor-
13 

tantly, certainty that can guide all our activities in pursuit of Federal law. 

Mr. DoOLITI'LE. I thank the gentleman. I thank the witnesses. 

Does any member of this subcommittee wish to address questions 

to our witnesses? The gentleman, Mr. Radanovich, is recognized. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I did 

want to direct some questions but not to my colleagues, Mr. Fazio 

and Mr. Herger. It is unfortunate that Mr. Bradley is not in the 

room right now but--

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. He made a signal. Maybe it wasn't clear whether 

he intended to-he is coming back. If you want to hold or ask other 

questions, perhaps you will have a chance to talk to him at that 

time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am going to hold my time then. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Ensign. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is just real brief. Both 

of you are from California, and my question is very simple. You 

represent the people that elected you to office. You seem to know 

your districts well and the needs out there. How do you feel about 

somebody from New Jersey, other places in the country basically 

trying to come in and tell you what is best for your state? Shouldn't 

the people that elected you, that put their faith in you to know 

what is best for your state. 

Mr. HERGER. I thank you for the question, Mr. Ensign. I suppose 

we feel about the same way you do when a mining legislation 

comes up as it did yesterday afternoon from, again, individuals 

from the East. I believe this is a tragedy that we see happening 

over and over again in this. It is not just a so-called, it is a war 

on the West, whether it be on our water, on our grazing, on mining, 

whatever it is. It is a tragedy that hopefully this Congress is in the 

process of correcting, and this legislation goes toward that I believe. 

Mr. ENSIGN. And I think it gets to a deeper issue. We have a rep- resentative form of government. Part of what Congress is about is 

bringing people here that were elected by their districts. This is not 

interstate. This is all in California, and it would seem to me that 

the responsibility of the rest of us is to listen to the representatives 

that represent those districts that are only being affected. And New 

Jersey is certainly not being affected by this, and we should listen 

to what the best recommendations are from those representatives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Yes. Mr. Miller is recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, the gentleman from Nevada raises an interesting point, and I am sure that people in Arizona when Nevada and 

Las Vegas try to explain to them how they should give up their 

water and sell it to Nevada will be very interested in having the 

people from Arizona only--

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. making that-! will yield at the endmaking that decision. The people from New Jersey and every state 

in the Union are affected by this because we put $3.5 billion of 

their taxpayers' money into it, and at a time when we are looking 

to reduce subsidies and to reduce the obligations of the Federal 
14 

Government, this was a very key component, as were the taxpayers of all of California involved in this since they paid for it. 

Mr. Fazio has pointed out the power users in our state and other 

states pay for this project, and, in fact, there was a very, very substantial support within the state. We don't get to do things district 

by district. There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple 

of days about the agriculture bill and how urban people should join 

in to help in the Marketing Promotion Board so that the fanners 

can sell their crops overseas. Urban people here are asking for 

some help in protecting the environment, protecting the Bay-Delta 

system because that is where their residents spend their time, use, 

and earn a living. 

Now, that is the process. It is just untenable to suggest that 

every district would have the veto over anything they did. You 

know, the New York Stock Exchange is located in New York, but 

with all due respect, people in all 50 states use the stock exchange 

and expect to have protections, expect to have timely business. 

And so that is why this is, and the fact is that the business community, a good portion of the agriculture community, the environmental community, the urban community of California supported 

this legislation and pleaded-the major lenders to agriculture 

pleaded with the President of the United States, a Republican at 

that time, Mr. Bush, to sign this legislation because this was good 

for the state. 

Mr. Thomas may have troubles with it. Mr. Herger may have 

troubles. Mr. Dooley may have troubles with it. But the fact was 

the consensus was that this was good for the state. There was not 

the consensus in the Central Valley, but California is larger than 

the Central Valley. And we will find that we will make decisions 

on the Utah wilderness area, we will make decisions on the Grand 

Canyon, we will make decisions on Yellowstone, on the Everglades, 

on our coastal line that are used and in some cases belong to all 

the people of this country, and we are not going to let the Congressmen from Utah or from San Francisco veto what is national 

legislation and national interest. 

Now, if these people want to finance this project all on their own 

and they want to take it over, hey, go get them, tigers. Just give 

us back what the people from New Jersey invested in this, and the 

people from northern California, and the people from Nevada, and 

the people from Idaho, and Florida. They have put up the $3 billion. Give them back the interest subsidies, and I guess we will call 

it square. 

But that is not what they were thinking. They were asking the 

people of New Jersey for their vote to start this project 50 years 

ago. They were asking the vote from Nevada to start this project. 

So, you know, that is the nature of a national legislature. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Would you yield now? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ENSIGN. The first point you brought up was obviously the Arizona-Nevada project, and that is interstate, and that is where the 

states have to work together. But at the same time, if Nevada and 

Arizona come up with an agreement, I would hope that the rest of 

the states would be willing to support that agreement. 

The second thing is we are getting--
15 

Mr. MILLER. Well, you have to include California in that. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER. And Colorado. 

Mr. ENSIGN. And the states that are affected by that. Absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. ENSIGN. But at the same time--

Mr. MILLER. And the taxpayers of the country. They don't give 

away their vote. 

Mr. ENSIGN. We need to be stewards. No question. We need to 

be stewards of the taxpayer dollars, but I think you bring up a very 

good point and that is the more we can get it back to the states, 

the better off we will all be, and that includes the tax dollars and 

everything else. The less Federal control, I think we will all be a 

lot better off. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I appreciate now that people have the project, 

they have the interest-free loans for 35 years, and they have the 

subsidies, and they have the valuable land, they are saying, "Let 

us call the deal off. Let us control it." This project serves the entire 

State of California and has--

Mr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MILLER. One second. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. And has implications for the entire state. That is 

what we have learned in the Central Valley Improvement Act. 

That is what we learned in Bay-Delta. Nobody could be left out, 

and nobody could opt out because given oux situation in California 

now, you must, in fact, participate because water usage in the state 

is changing. The economics of the state is changing. The economy 

of the state is changing, and the growth of the state has continued, 

and that is why all water implicates everyone else in every other 

region. Yes, I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I guess, you know, I am 

sitting here with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman Doolittle, Mr. 

Dooley, Mr. Fazio, and Mr. Thomas who was here, and also Mr. 

Herger, who represent the area that the CVP operates in, and 

IMr. MILLER. No, I do too. See--

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, not necessarily. 

Mr. MILLER. No. I do. I have 90,000 people on a contract, and 

I represent the delta. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That is fine but you don't--

Mr. MILLER. Directly implicated. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You don't represent agriculture in that district, 

and I will make that point. What I am trying to say is that you 

are viewed as an outsider who is coming into the valley trying to 

tellMr. MILLER. Well, excuse me. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. No. Just let me make this point. You are 

viewed as an outsider coming in--

Mr. MILLER. I have lived in the state 25 yearsMr. RADANOVICH. Will the gentleman yield? I believe I have got 

the time. I would like the courtesy of making a point, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 
16 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And that is that you are viewed as an outsider 

coming in trying to tell agriculture what is best for agriculture 

without the benefit of listening. What you are also doing is coming 

from an area--

Mr. MILLER. Let me reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. No, not right now because what I want to mention is Hetch Hetchy. 

Mr. MILLER. I want to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Hetch Hetchy--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The time belongs to Mr. Miller. 

Mr. RADANOVICH [continuing]. area up there is providing 30-you 

are paying $30,000 for water--

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairrnan--

Mr. RADANOVICH (continuing]. corning out of the Hetch Hetchy 

Valley which is comparable to the Yosemite Valley, and my statement to you, Mr. Miller, is--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The time does belong to the gentleman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH [continuing]. clean up your own backyard before 

you come into my valley and try to tell my ag fellows how to farm 

and what is right on water policy in California. Clean up your own 

backyard first. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, can I claim my time? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. May we be excused? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reclaim the time the gentleman took from me. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller asks for unanimous consent to have 

30 extra seconds, and just before you go, may I suggest following 

this exchange that we try and direct our comments to the witnesses because we will have plenty of opportunity to air these issues. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I really resent the fact that as an elected official from California I am viewed as an outsider. This is about the 

state--

Mr. RADANOVICH. You certainly are. When you attack agriculture, sir, you are viewed as an outsider to the San Joaquin Valley. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman does have the time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Then if he is going to attack me, I request a 

response then. 

Mr. MILLER. You have got five minutes coming. You can talk 

until hell freezes over. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sir, fire away then. 

Mr. MILLER. The fact of the matter is that my constituents are 

under contract with the Central Valley Project-I think the first 

urban contract with the Central Valley Project. The fact is that 

water diversions for the benefit of agriculture out of the delta-see, 

there is no natural leak in the delta. It goes to the Pacific Ocean. 

We put a pipe in. We sent you a couple of million acre feet of 

water. The people of the State of California decided to do that. This 

nation decided to do that. 

That all has impact on the livelihoods, on the recreation, on the 

lifestyle, on the standard of living of millions of people in the San 

Francisco Bay area-of millions of people in the San Francisco Bay 

area. So to suggest that somehow that they should be bystanders 
17 

while you continue to carve up the Treasury and carve up the 

water of the state is an outrage. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Mr. Farr would like to be recognized 

and is recognized. Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am probably the only Californian sitting on this committee that doesn't 

have a major vested interest in the water from the CVPIA. But I 

do represent a coastline, and it is interesting how the coastal communities of California are also dependent on this because we have 

a major fishing industry in California, and that fishing industrythe salmon industry-depends on the water quality and the water 

availability also of these same rivers. 

So there is multiple economic users of this water, and I think 

that one of the things that we want to try to do is make sure that 

it is sort of best management practices for everybody as expressed 

in the Bay-Delta ,Accord. And my question really goes to Congressman Fazio, and I think you expressed it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I was a little bit concerned because in your 

opening remarks you indicated that our hearings indicated everyone indicated it was not working. That is not what I heard. I heard 

what you expressed when you introduced the bill. It says that we 

have heard from those who expressed concerns about the way certain provisions of the CVPIA are being implemented and interpreted, and that some provisions of the CVPIA need modification. 

I am reading from your statement that is iii the record here. And 

that we ought to use this bill to build on the Bay-Delta Accord. And 

my question to Congressman Fazio is that I think you reflected in 

your comments that the whole thing isn't broken and doesn't need 

to be thrown out, that you need some--

Mr. FAZIO. I don't think anybody here, Sam, thinks this thing 

needs to be thrown out. There are people who are indicating that 

that is our intent, those of us who support reforming the CVPIA. 

That is not the bottom line here. What we are trying to do, having 

worked with the law for two and a half years, is to make the 

changes that reflect in some cases what we understood to be legislative intent, and in other cases react to problems that have developed from the first couple of years of administration of the law. 

There is no question that the Bay-Delta Accord is something that 

no one here is trying to destabilize. It was a hard-fought compromise, state-Federal, north-south, east-west, and we want to 

make sure that the concepts that are included in that guide us in 

the future. I don't think there is any attempt to throw that out, but 

there is so much misinformation, so much arguing past each other 

on these issues, like the disposition of the 800,000 acre feet, that 

we have got to come to some resolution. And we have got to write 

into law clarification, and that is why I think these hearings are 

necessary. 

As I indicated earlier, a lot of things that happened in the last 

round were not handled in the formal process, and a lot of things 

I think were interpreted differently by people. And now the rubber 

hits the road, and we have got to clarify that. I think this is probably an opportunity to hear some things that were never put on the 

record in the process of passing the bill in the last Congress. 
18 

Mr. F ARR. I am in agreement with that statement, and I would 

just caution the committee members that are not from California 

that there are other vested interests that are going to be here 

today. We have people-Jeff Kerry is on the pauel too from the 

Grasslands Water District which is in the Central Valley. They are 

very concerned about the way the legislation is being implemented; 

Roger Thomas from the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association. 

You know, we are having a record year of salmon fishing in California. I mean, it is absolutely phenomenal. Fish are literally jumping on the boats, and a lot of the credit to that is the way our fish 

management practices have been handled in California. So water 

is very important to all of these economic interests. 

This bill is very important. It is important to me because we receive in one of my districts in one of my counties a small portion, 

only 19,000 acre feet, but that is not a major vested interest compared to the rest of the people on this panel, but we do receive 

some water. So I am looking forward, Mr. Chairman, to working 

on trying to find a solution that will be a win-win for everyone. 

Mr. DooLITrLE. Thank you. Mr. Radanovich has asked to be recognized now that Senator Bradley is back. And before the Chair 

recognizes him, I just want to point out that to the extent possible 

we ought to expedite these questions because we have got three 

panels with 10 witnesses, and we haven't gotten to them yet. So 

there is going to be plenty of time to get into the nitty-gritty of this 

with that, however, and any member who wants to still ask questions-! will get Mr. Dooley on the list, OK-may do so now. Mr. 

Radanovich is recognized. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Senator Bradley, as well Mr. Herger and Mr. Fazio. I do want to say in part that I think I have to thank the 1992 piece of legislation, 

the CVPIA, because that is in part why I am here today. It was 

passed over the objections of my predecessor and affected him dearly in his reelection bid. 

And the only reason why I want to bring this up is because, 

again, acknowledging Mr. Fazio and Mr. Herger, Mr. Dooley, Mr. 

Doolittle-those are the people-Mr. Pombo-those that live in the 

district where the CVP is. I believe the main flaw in CVPIA has 

been its failure to acknowledge the fact that it was a piece of legislation, in my view, that was foisted from the outside over the objection of the people that used it. 

And what I would like to see in this process is along with making 

the state water project an environmentally responsible project, 

making sure that there is water allocated to the environment, not 

at the expense of the security of agriculture in the State of California. That is all that anybody who is representing the reforms in the 

CVPIA are after is the ability to have some security in the interest 

in the San Joaquin Valley. 

And, Senator, you made a couple of statements or one statement 

about making sure that we have patience and cooperation during 

this process. And in that vein, I would like to invite you to come 

and talk to the people that I represent that live and breathe water 

in the San Joaquin Valley who need to use the water in order to 

survive and discuss issues like the 800,000 acre foot allocation and 

this study on the San Joaquin River. Because I think, unfortu-
19 

nately, there was not enough attention paid to the needs of agriculture in this bill, and that is simply what these reforms do. Mr. 

Miller, nobody wants to gut this bill. Nobody wants to trash the 

Bay-Delta agreement. Nobody including farmers in the San Joaquin Valley want to destroy that. 

Now, I couldn't have said this probably 30 years ago when environmentalists would raise issues and farmers would say, frankly, 

"Go to hell," because they didn't have to listen to you. But the environmental movement has done good things over the last 20 years 

to raise the consciousness of those that are using the environment 

or resources in order to make a living. 

But that doesn't apply today. We want to do the good thing. This 

bill, CVPIA 1992, threatens agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley, 

and what we are trying to do is make adjustments to the bill so 

that people can live and farm in the San Joaquin Valley, and that 

is all I have got to say. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Dooley is recognized. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a fisheries biologist by any means, but I find it almost humorous with the comments by Mr. Farr and Senator Bradley, who are attributing the 

record salmon catches this year to the reform of the CVPIA that 

was passed two years ago. It is my understanding that you don't 

catch a salmon until about five years after it is spawned in the 

river, and so perhaps this is almost a recognition that maybe we 

weren't doing things all that poorly before the CVPIA was put in 

place. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Maybe we should just give Mother Nature some 

credit for a good, wet year. 

Senator BRADLEY. It is a little bit like the confidence that Congressman Thomas said was restored when the Congress changed. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. That is right. 

Senator BRADLEY. The contracts weren't bankable, but when 

Congress changed--

Mr. DOOLEY. Right. I guess the other thing I would like to just 

touch on is Mr. Miller's comments that the legislation represented 

a consensus. Many of us would contend that was somewhat of an 

overstatement, but what we are looking at in the Central Valley 

Project Reform Act today is trying to find a consensus in terms of 

what are the appropriate reforms to make in the legislation that 

passed a couple of years ago. 

And I guess the characterization that this bill is being brought 

to the Congress by sinister forces almost, well, I certainly take exception to that. I think Mr. Fazio and Mr. Doolittle do too, and 

what I think we are trying to do is to find a way to address some 

of the inadequacies in the bill. 

We are going to hear testimony from not only ag contractors but 

from urban contractors and even from the Bureau of Reclamation. 

All are going to identify provisions in the 1992 law that need to be 

addressed. Some of them are going to argue that they ought to be 

addressed administratively, and some are going to argue that they 

need to be addressed legislatively. But in every instance, the one 

thing that you cannot escape is that various interests are acknowledging that there is a need for some changes. 
20 

And, Senator Bradley, I just want to point out that if you do not 

have time to listen to the urban witnesses-who represent a variety of urban water districts including Alameda County, the City 

and County of San Francisco, the East Bay Metropolitan Water 

District, and the Santa Clara Valley-you should at least know 

that they went through point by point. 

And you will find that there is a great deal of support and commonality between what we are asking for and what they are agreeing to. They agree in concept that there needs to be clarification 

on the use of the 800,000 acre feet. And that is what we are trying 

to do. They agree that there needs to be modifications in the water 

transfer provisions because they, quite clearly, aren't working now. 

They are not opposing those provisions. 

They agree that there needs to be changes in the tiered pricing 

because that is not working. And they agree that there needs to be 

modifications to the contracts to provide for greater certainty. They 

also agree that there needs to be some consideration given to the 

reforms in the Trinity River provisions. I mean, this is not just agriculture contractors that are bringing forth a piece of legislation 

that is trying to unravel the beneficial provisions of the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act. We think that we are trying to 

move forward in a very responsible way, and I would hope that the 

characterization of this legislation would not be such that it doesn't 

recognize the good faith effort that has been put forth. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Thank you. Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have to 

agree with the gentlemen, Mr. Miller, from California when he 

made the statement that the people in California don't own the 

New York Stock Exchange. But by the same tone, the people in 

New York did not own California water. The people in California 

or the state owned California water. 

And what happened with the CVPIA was the Federal Government took 800,000 acre feet, and I think California was very generous. And if you will check the Supreme Court Decisions and your 

law, you will find out that is correct. And so that analogy simply does not hold up. 

I also found it interesting that the reclamation projects have 

been referred to as government subsidies because in this case the 

irrigators have been paying back on their projects, and I would 

hope that I could hear from the gentleman from California the 

same argument when the bill on the Presidio comes up, when the 

taxpayers from all over this nation is going to be paying $25 million a year plus guaranteeing a lot of loans. So I just would challenge the gentleman from California to be consistent. 

I think that there is a great consensus here in this bilL I am very 

proud of the members from California on both sides of the aisle. I 

do have a question for Mr. Fazio. You did state that Secretary 

Krug said-oh, Mr. Fazio left. Well, let me ask--

Senator BRADLEY. I will be glad to give his answer if you would 

like. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I didn't mean to chase him away. Well, let me 

ask the Senator then. 

Senator BRADLEY. But don't take me seriously. 
21 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask Mr. Herger, and if you can answer 

this, I am sure you can. Mr. Fazio stated that Secretary Krug said 

the purpose of the Central Valley Project contemplated the export 

of only surplus water from the Sacramento Valley. Can you tell me 

if in California law if instream flows for flow augmentation for 

salmon purposes is that of beneficial use stated in law? 

Mr. HERGER. I don't know if I have an answer to that. I mean, 

we have been doing a lot of legislation. I don't think there is in 

California law. Our longtime-just since you brought this issue up, 

this has been a-I represent an area where probably most of the 

two-thirds of the rainfall and precipitation that in California falls, 

and our concern has been a long one which is somewhat different 

than some of those others that are represented here. 

The concern is that we have our basic water needs met first. 

That is something that we are trying-we are working with the 

Chairman to at least have this addressed as it is not adequately 

addressed at this time. But we do recognize the general needs of 

our state and of the San Joaquin Valley and the rest of the Sacramento Valley, and we just want to work on this very fine balance 

that we are attempting to establish. And that is why we want to 

reform this legislation which we feel this balance is not there now. 

Mr. FARR. Would the gentlewoman yield on that question? 

Mr. HERGER. Part of that balance is the fish issue obviously. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes. I will yield. 

Mr. FARR. The California constitution is the only constitution in 

the country that gives the right for fish and wildlife to the people 

of California. So it is a constitutional right that we have in California. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The constitution in California allows for the 

fish and wildlife to be managed by your--

Mr. FARR. The constitution sets up that the fish and wildlife of 

the state belong to the people of the State of California and set up 

in the constitution the California Fish and Game Commission. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, sir, it did but it did not establish 

instream flow as a beneficial use, and my only question is, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Herger, that unless it is very clear in California law 

that this is a beneficial use, then the 800,000 acre volume could be 

considered, all of it, surplus water. I just want to flag that problem. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the gentlelady will yield, the Chair would suggest one of the witnesses coming along will get you an answer, but 

today you will have a water attorney in the final panel who may be able to give you the answer right away to that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I see that my time is almost up, but I can 

tell you the people of California are being extremely generous. I 

don't think we would be this generous in Idaho. So my hat is off 

to you. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Cooley is recognized. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, being from Oregon's 2nd Congressional District, we trickle a little bit into the system since you do 

J>ull water out of our Klamath County Lower Basin into California. 

We have a vested interest in watching this process because we too 

are having the same problem in our state. 

I applaud you for your effort, and I think that if this goes through the way we hope it. does, we can use this as an example 
22 

in getting the Bureau of Reclamation to take a good look at priorities and other issues. 

The water of Oregon in the constitution is dedicated to all the 

people of Oregon, and so we do have a Yested interest in what is 

coming out of Oregon into your system and are very, very concerned about this issue. 

We are being forced by the Bureau to release an overabundance 

of water into the system, and it is creating a hardship on our agricultural community in the southern part of my district because of 

the Bureau's actions. 

We are trying to circumvent those, and we have not been able 

to. We are forced to do more than historical runs in the process and 

hopefully that will come to some conclusion in this process which 

will help us in the future. I want to thank the committee for bringing this up. It makes California such a big area, and with so many 

individuals concerned, it will help us a great deal. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Thank you. Are there further questions of the 

members of Congress who have appeared to testify? If not, we will 

excuse you and thank you very much for appearing today. 

Senator BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Senator Bradley. 

Senator BRADLEY [continuing]. since I went over and voted and 

came all the way back in anticipation of some heavy grilling, but 

let me if I could just make just a few comments and then leave if 

that is OK; try to respond quickly to some of the points that have 

been raised because I think some of the points that have been 

raised are important points. 

The first thing I want to say is that in my relationship with you, 

Mr. Chairman, and with Mr. Dooley and with other members who 

were formerly from the Central Valley has always been of the highest quality. I think you have done an extremely aggressive and outstanding job of representing the interests of the constituents that 

you are seeking to represent. 

I know that agriculture is a very sizable part of your constituency, and I believe that there has been-you in no way could be 

faulted for trying to represent those interests. The whole thrust 

though of the Central Valley Improvement Act was to say is water 

from the Central Valley Project only for agricultural interests? And 

I think the fundamental thrust was, no, it is not. It should be 

available for urban users if a landowner wants to make that sale, 

and it should be available for fish and wildlife. 

One of the things in the Act that troubles me, and I don't know 

what the position of the Metropolitan Water District will be or any 

of the other water districts that are outside of the Central Valley 

Project itself, is the section of the bill that allows essentially a 

water district to deny a landowner the right to sell his water to 

whomever he chooses. 

Under the Central Valley Improvement Act, we said that the 

right of first refusal for any water sale should go to anyone in the 

district. And, second, that no more than, I think, 20 percent of the 

water could be sold to any one water district. But we did preserve 

the opportunity for landowners to sell their water rights essentially 

to urban districts. 
23 

And the reason this is not unrelated-! am sorry that the Congressman from Nevada left-but the reason it is unrelated to 

broader issues is to the extent the Metropolitan Water District or 

other highly populated areas of California cannot get water, the inevitable pressure will build to alter the Colorado Basin Compact 

that directly affects Nevada as well as other Colorado Basin states. 

And even the representation of Nevada Senators are interested 

in maybe moving a little from Arizona to Las Vegas even as we 

speak, and my guess is that to the extent that this Act is altered 

and access to some water from willing landowners who choose to 

sell to urban districts is prevented, it will simply hasten the day 

when both-I don't know if it will get to be the Upper Basin states, 

Mr. Cooley, but certainly the Lower Basin states-will be very concerned about the pressure that will build for that water. 

In answer to the gentlelady from Idaho in terms of taxpayer dollars, roughly in present value the Central Valley Project is about 

3. 7 billion. By 2030, as a result of the power charges and the water 

charges, $230 million will be repaid of that. 

So, you know, when we started the reclamation projects many, 

many, many years ago, it was supposed to be repayment in 20 

years. Then we went to 40 years. Well, this will be 70 years after 

the project was completed, and there will have been a repayment 

of basically five percent. And it is all in the eye of beholders to how 

much people are being charged. 

On the issue of tiered pricing, I would say simply that, you know, 

I visited a few grapefruit growers down in San Diego County. They 

are paying 4 or $500 an acre foot for their water, and they are operating very efficient operations; little plastic tubes that go right to 

the roots. The water goes right in. Meanwhile, you know, in the 

Valley, it is a little different than that. 

And I think that if there was a more concerted effort to allow 

price to determine conservation measures that the effort would be 

made, and maybe we could solve some of this by accommodating 

everybody. At least we don't know if we cannot do that now because as Congressman Dooley reiterated, the Act really hasn't had 

a chance to work. 

So I would urge you please don't act precipitously. Keep people 

around the table. Allow the Act to try to work and know that as, 

you know, one Senator who has an interest in this, I will continue 

to keep a very close eye on this from the Senate side. So, Mr. 

Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to come and testify, and I am 

sorry that I wanted to say just a few things, but, you know, I got 

hot walking over, and I needed a chance to cool off. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Senator, thank you. As the author of the bill, I 

hopethatMr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, before you excuse the Senator and 

since he came all the way back and wanted some hot questioning--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, hang on a second then. We will get you in 

line because we have got two others who want to go. We are not 

going to excuse him right now. He provoked further questioning. I 

just want to say to you that we believe in water transfers, and we 

believe the bill needs to be changed in order to allow that to occur. 
24 

That provision is not designed to inhibit it. It is designed to further it, and I don't think now is the time to get into an elaborate 

explanation of that. But please don't believe everything our critics 

say without at least looking at what we are trying to do, and you 

evaluate it for yourself. And with that, I am going to recognize Mr. 

Dooley and then Mr. Miller and then Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. DoOLEY. Senator Bradley, I have the highest respect for your 

knowledge and understanding of our issues. You obviously have 

done a lot of work, especially for being outside of the area. But I 

guess the opportunity that I want to take now really is to dispel 

some of the notions that this is a bill that is trying to unravel the 

CVPIA. 

I don't think it can be characterized as that, and it is, in fact, 

a good faith effort to deal with some problems because if you really 

look at what we are doing, we are still maintaining our commitment on the 800,000 acre feet. We are maintaining our commitment to provide for the $30 million in the restoration fund. We are 

maintaining our commitment to try to provide for and facilitate 

transfers. Really, on the basic components, there is no backing 

away from any of those. We are trying to get at some of the modifications that need to be made in order to accomplish those other 

things. 

And I want to specifically address one issue concerning tiered 

pricing because I think that this year is one of the best examples 

of why there needs to be some modifications. When we have tremendous rainfall and snowpack like we had this year, and when 

we have the opportunity for water districts in the San Joaquin Valley to recharge their aquifers, that last acre foot is the acre foot 

that is doing the most for conservation. You know, it is the one 

that is going back to recharge our aquifers that has been depleted. 

If you have a tiered pricing system that is in place as it was prescribed in the legislation, you actually have a reverse incentive for 

that conservation practice. And this is a good example of why there 

needs to be some accommodations. Maybe on this issue, it doesn't 

have to be fixed legislatively, but somehow we have to have a recognition that there needs to be some administrative changes so 

when we have these opportunities they are not thwarted by misguided policy. 

I think that is that same type of approach that many of us think 

is embodied throughout our bill, that we are trying to find a way 

to make some changes. And some of our critics out there are trying 

to represent that we are walking away from the Bay-Delta agreement. But the Bay-Delta agreement is one of the most important 

agreements, from the ag perspective as well as the urban perspective, in the State of Califorma. Nobody wants to jeopardize that. 

We simply need an agreement that goes beyond three years, and 

that is the life span of the Bay-Delta Accord. We need to find a way 

to build upon that, and we think with some modifications, this is 

going to be very consistent with what was in that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will call on Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. I wanted George to go first. Well, Senator, I probably 

am in one of the most unique positions of any member of Congress 

in terms of water because of my district. My district has CVP 

water. I have urban users. I have agricultural users. I have envi-
25 

ronmental users in my district. I represent the other side of the 

delta from where George is. 

I also have a fishing interest in my district. I also have what is 

considered northern California water in my district. I also have 

part of my district that is very heavily dependent upon water wells 

for irrigation and for urban users. So my district probably represents just about everything there is in California in terms of 

water. 

You make the statement about the $500 an acre foot farmers 

down in southern California. The biggest pressure in the world on 

those guys to develop their property is $500 an acre foot water. 

And I have had people from the environmental community stream 

through my office over the past two years and talk to me about pre- serving our farmland and preserving the open space and how important that is for California and for the quality of life of California. And yet at the same token, they want to do things that force 

the increase in the price of water which the economic result of that 

being development of more farmland. 

And you can't have it both ways. You can't maintain agriculture in California which is the number 1 industry in California, the biggest employer, the most money that comes into California-you 

can't maintain that at the same time you are trying to put the guys 

out of business. It is impossible. 

The other side of that is you made the statement about the plastic tubes that take water down to the roots. I would invite you to 

come back to the Central Valley of California today and look at 

what we are doing today as a result of the drought and as a result 

of the CVPIA, and as a result of increased water costs. 

It is very common today for us to have tube irrigation systems 

in all of our permanent crops. It is not an oddity. It is not something that they are only doing in southern California with $500 an 

acre foot water. It is a reality that we face today in agriculture in 

California. You rarely see flood irrigation in California anymore, at 

least in my part of the world. It is extremely rare today. 

It is causing other problems. Before when we had flood irriga- tion, we would leach the salts out of the field. We did not have the 

kind of salt buildup that we are having today in the fields. I had 

a guy come in to see me a couple of weeks ago that said that they have noticed that at the end of their fields they are all of a sudden 

having dramatic drops in production because they don't let the 

water run out anymore because they keep it in the field. And the 

guys downstream from them who previously had used that water 

for irrigation don't have it anymore. 

I mean, what we are trying to do with this bill is to go back in 

and try to fix some of the unintended consequences that we think 

happened by that. And we are trying to listen to all sides in this 

debate and trying to accommodate everyone knowing that not everyone is going to get what they wanted. 

And at times it is extremely frustrating to have some of the stuff 

that has been put out about this bill that says we are trying to gut 

the CVPIA, that we are trying to undo the Bay-Delta Accord because it would have been easy for us to do that. We could have put 

out a bill that just, quite frankly, repealed the CVPIA from the 

very beginning, but we did not do that. We tried to go in and fix 
26 

the problems that we saw with the bill, and the criticism would 

have been the same if we had tried to repeal the CVPIA. 

So, you know, I welcome you to work with us to try to fiX these 

problems that exist, but in order to do that, you are going to have 

to hear the other side of it, and you are going to have to hear some 

of the things that my fanners say. You know, George and Cal and 

I are all farmers from the Central Valley, and we have some experience with what this has done. And I would be more than happy 

to tell you what this is doing to my district. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Miller is recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator Bradley was nice enough to take the time 

to come over, and he wasn't in the room when I spoke, and I wanted to thank him very much. 

Senator BRADLEY. I understood you defended me, and I appreciate that very much. You might have told them since they didn't 

know about a New Jersey Senator doing something about California, and he chastised California for having that New Jersey Senator do something. I am talking about the Pyramid Lake-Piute Settlement Act which is part of his district--

Mr. MILLER. Senator, those who will want to engage you on western water will find out that your understanding of the complexities 

of the western water system, whether they are in Colorado or N evada, and all of the settlements that you have participated in when 

you were Chair of the subcommittee to the benefit of westerners in 

all of our states-will find that knowledge rather extensive. And I 

can't tell you how much I appreciate your pledge to stay involved 

in this issue. 

You know, this bill was about a very large and dynamic state 

that had a water regime that was drawn up in the 1940's and implemented in the '50's and '60's that would have continued to deny 

us change in the governance of our state in terms of our emerging 

economies and our emerging population; a state that every 10 years 

has added 10 million people to it. Like it or not, that is our fact, 

and water is needed for homebuilding, and water is needed for the 

semiconductor industry, and water is needed for all of these diverse 

uses. 

And that is why the purposes of this Act were changed to say 

that you have to take into account not just flood control and agriculture as we once thought in 1940, but now we have problems 

with the environmental. And it is right, it is protected in the constitution, and it does provide instream flows for this protection. 

We had to match this because of the tug and pull of 32 million 

people that California is going to house, and we could not give single authority to the Central Valley agricultural people as they 

have. And this bill simply gives people seats at the table that were 

denied by law seats at those tables. 

The outcome was the delta system where the governor started 

out saying he would never participate to him proudly signing the 

accords with the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, environmentalists, urban, 

agricultural people. This was a new day for California. Why? Because this bill put people's-we have said from the outset-we said 

again this morning-we do not object to looking at these f.rovisions. 

But let us not suggest that this bill is a consensus bil . You will 

hear from the very same people that Mr. Dooley recited who, yes, 
27 

we agree there are things that need to be addressed, but let us not 

pretend that this bill-this bill is very reminiscent of what happened when we passed CVPIA. 

We invited everybody to negotiate, and everybody was 

negotiative. Things were going along fine, and then one day the 

Central Valley water user people simply pulled their people out of 

the room. They forbid their representatives and othens to go into 

rooms and negotiations. There have been negotiations now over the last year and a half, 

and all of a sudden apparently the Central Valley water user people got tired of those negotiations because other people are demanding items for environmental and for big urban economic interests that are dependent upon the same kind of stability you talked 

about for agriculture. Homebuilders, commercial development, new jobs, new industry 

have to have a source of water in our state. So now we have a bill 

that represents the Central Valley interests, but let us understand 

that is what it represents. That doesn't mean it can't be changed. 

That doesn't mean it can't be improved. That doesn't mean there 

aren't some things in it that are right. 

But it also has some provisions in it that are absolutely inconsistent with the intent and the purposes and the consensus that 

was formed around the CVPIA; the long-term contracts, the water 

marketing changes, the funding of restoration, the preservation of 

wetlands, all of which have huge constituencies in our state attached to them. 

And as people have already admitted, much of this can be 

worked out, and we will hear administratively. Well, why don't we 

get a consensus on what can be done administratively and reduce 

the things that need to be done statutorily and then work on those? 

But that is not what this process represents. 

The healthiest thing about this I guess is it is going to allow an 

airing of all of these views. But to suggest that somehow there is 

a consensus in the state to overturn CVPIA is simply dead wrong, whether it is the business community, the big business community, 

or the small business community, or the millions of people who live 

in urban and suburban areas, and those who share in the recreation uses of the delta or the other water uses in the state. 

So this may be the beginning, but it is the beginning of a very, 

very long journey to try to reach consensus. And right now, in fact, 

what we have had is we are forcing consensus at a whole lot of levels where people never thought it was going to be possible. And to 

come in now and to interrupt that process to me is the most destructive thing you can do, and that is why Standard and Poor's 

and other people have said what has happened so far is improve 

the economic standing of the State of California which has a lot of 

other problems. 

And it is due in no small part to the kind of time and effort that 

the Senator from New Jersey lent because the biggest problem would have been getting somebody's attention in the Senate. You 

will find this out, your biggest problem will be getting somebody's 

attention from some other state to take care of your problem as you 

see it. That will be the biggest problem you will ever have in the 

U.S. Senate. And to get this kind of time, this kind of study, this 
28 

kind of homework, and this kind of commitment out in our state, 

talking to people on the ground-a rare moment in your relationships with the U.S. Senate. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, in the interest of further airing these issues, let us excuse the Senator and thank him for the time he has 

given. 

Senator BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. When I 

was Chairing these subcommittee hearings on the Senate side, I 

used to have a general rule. If I couldn't get the politicians off in 

half an hour, I was in trouble. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. 

Mr. R.ADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Yes. Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. R.ADANOVICH. For the record, I would like to mark the absence of California Senators Boxer and Feinstein at this hearing. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, is that a unanimous consent request? I mean, it just is remarkable to me when we are talking 

about trying to build a consensus and trying to move forward in a 

constructive fashion that one of my colleagues from California 

would try to bring this up in order to try to create some type of 

political division. And I just don't see any constructive---

Mr. RADANOVICH. No. It is more rem·arkable to me that something so important to the State of California is not represented by 

California Senators. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, let me just urge us to move on here. We 

are going to get into the issues, and let us call up our first panel. 

And while they are coming up-we have been into this hearing now 

about an hour and a half, and we have our first panel. While they 

are coming up, the Chair would like to suggest some ground rules 

one of which is when the votes come, which they surely will, it will 

be my intent to recess, go to the vote, and come back rather than 

try and run the hearing during the vote. 

Secondly, and if members feel differently, now is the time to express yourselves. We knew this was going to be a long hearing, and 

we had thought about maybe taking off an hour for lunch, but I 

think the Chair almost is prepared to recommend that we just keep 

on going now. When the votes occur, you can grab something over 

off the Floor. Is that acceptable to people? OK. 

I know we are long into this, but the Chair has the unanimous 

consent request to speak to Mr. Beard about a situation that has 

just occurred on Monday in my district with the damage to Folsom 

Dam, and a tremendous amount of water is being released. And I 

would like to ask unanimous consent for five :-ninutes to engage 

Mr. Beard in questions concerning that matter before we get back 

to the CVP Act. 

Mr. MILLER. Reserving my right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I 

do so only to ask you whether or not you would not plan to credit 

the 400,000 acre feet of water against the 800,000 feet of water 

that we are losing. I know it is a close call for a lot of people in 

the state right now, but this was not designed. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, if there is no objection, Mr. Beard, thank 

you for being here. You are soon to be leaving the service of the 

government, and we appreciate your willingness to testify today. 

Could you tell us about this situation of Folsom? For example, I 
29 

have read that we are going to lose about 400,000 acre feet with 

the rupture of the gate. Is that, in fact, what you are expecting? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to really 

ask Roger Patterson, our regional director, to come up. He has been 

on-site from the moment that the event occurred and can answer 

your questions more fully than I, since I haven't been there yet. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. That would be fine. Mr. Patterson, please come 

up. 

Mr. PATI'ERSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I did provide a couple 

of photos to the staff. They can be passed around perhaps as we 

are talking. In direct response to your question; yes, that is pretty 

close. There will be a reduction in storage of about 400,000 acre 

feet over the course of the next two to three weeks. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. And what is the capacity of that reservoir? 1.1 

million? 

Mr. PATI'ERSON. The capacity of the reservoir is 977,000 so this 

is a little over 40 percent of the capacity of the reservoir. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. I am just wondering what do you believe the effect of that is going to be on our water supply and power generation and recreation? 

Mr. PATI'ERSON. Well, we are not sure of all of the details. Let 

me take them one at a time. We think there will be no impact on 

water deliveries for this year primarily because of the good water 

year we have had and the availability of storage. As for power, the 

Western Area Power Administration has estimated a loss in power 

generation of about $2 million. 

The California State Parks has said they believe there will not 

be major impacts on recreation on the reservoir. As for downstream 

recreation for rafting, it is unsafe to be on the river. And so I would 

say until the flows are down, we will see; maybe three weeks or 

so of impact downstream. 

I was actually a little surprised that the state parks has said 

publicly that they don't see major impacts on recreation primarily 

because of how full the reservoir was. It will still be at about 60 

percent of capacity. In fact, the lowest point will be five feet higher 

than our peak storage last year; a contrast in water years. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. It is just frustrating. With six years of drought, 

we finally get the reservoir to about 90 percent of its capacity, I 

think I read, and then this happens. We are going to get a formal 

report from the Bureau of Reclamation about what all happened here? 

Mr. PATI'ERSON. Yes. We definitely plan to do that. For those 

that don't know the details, it was about 8 o'clock on Monday 

morning when one of the radial floodgates on top of the dam experienced a partial failure. We are making plans now to barricade or 

bulkhead above that gate. We think we can do that with perhaps 

still about 10 feet of water over the sill which will allow us to capture about 100,000 acre feet. 

We are putting together a team of experts from within the Corps 

of Engineers, the State of California and the Bureau of Reclamation to analyze what the cause was and determine if we have similar problems with the other gates. We intend to have that analysis 

peer reviewed outside of government. Early estimates are that this 
30 

is about an $8 million problem to correct, and it could take about 

nine months before the gate is back in operation. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. So you mean that one gate is an $8 million problem? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, to repair this gate and construct bulkheads 

that we can use and have them available on a permanent basis we 

estimate will be around $8 million. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. A.."ld if it turns out that the other gates are defective, then it will be much more than that I guess? 

Mr. PATTERSON. The $8 million includes some costs to do minor 

enhancement on the other gates, but if they had to be replaced, 

yes, it would be higher. We have talked to the Corps of Engineers 

about whether we can operate unrestricted with the remaining 

gates, and they have said that we can. So we will be able to operate the reservoir for flood control this winter. This failure released 

about 40,000 CFS downstream. The channel capacity design is 

about 115,000. We had 50,000 in the river earlier this year during 

our flood operation, to give some perspective. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And normal flow at this time of year is about 

what? 1,500? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Normal flow this time of year would be anywhere from 2,000 up to maybe 4,000. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK Well, my time is about up. I appreciate the 

indulgence of the members and appreciate your responses. Let us 

get Mr. Beard to come back up and begin with the first panel. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER PATTERSON 

Mr. BEARD. Well, if I could, as somebody who is leaving, make 

a parenthetical remark about the last discussion, and that is that 

it points out the importance of dam safety funding. That has been 

a priority and something that I felt very strongly about. We needed 

to make sure that we were funding this program because, in essence, it is a zero defect industry. You make one mistake-you 

don't even get one mistake to make. 

Our FY '96 budget was reduced this year on the House side by 

about nine percent in our dam safety line item. I have been working with the Senate to make sure that we try to restore those funds 

which I really feel very strongly that we should do. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

present the Administration's views on H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act. The Administration believes passage of this 

bill is premature at this time. Less than three years ago, the Congress passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. It is a 

good law. 

It balances the needs of CVP customers including agricultural interests, power users, conservationists, urban areas, as well as recognizing the trust responsibility we have to Native Americans. The 

law acknowledges, and it is important to note, that all of these 

groups have a legitimate interest in the Central Valley Project. 

They are all benefit from the project. 

We believe that implementation of the CVPIA continues to make 

significant progress. We recognize, however, that not all water 
31 

users are happy with the law. In response, we have begun steps 

to administratively correct some of the problems that water users 

have expressed. Here are a few examples. Section 5(f) of the bill would clarify 

that water meters, while not prohibited, are not required on surface water delivery systems. We have also clarified this in 42 interim contracts we have recently signed with our contractors. 

Section 5 of the bill would clarify that compliance with the water 

conservation guidelines and criteria in the CVPIA also would be 

deemed to meet the requirements of Section 210 of the Reclamation 

Reform Act. The Bureau of Reclamation has already stated this position in a letter to our interim contractors. 

Section 7 of the bill stipulates that funds appropriated for acquisition of water or habitat shall only be used for purchases from 

willing sellers. All of the water that reclamation has purchased 

under the authority of the CVPIA for use in wildlife refuges or for 

fishery purposes has come from willing sellers exclusively. 

The Department recognizes a need to be flexible and to work 

with stakeholders to maintain the consensus we reached in the 

Bay-Delta Accord last December. In addition to the administrative 

steps we have already taken, we recognize that we can do more. 

For example, the provisions of paragraph five on page 33 of the 

bill would mandate a 25 percent reduction in water deliveries to 

refuges during a drought rather than merely authorize such a reduction as the current law provides. The Department believes that 

administrative actions will achieve the same result. 

The Department does not, however, agree with many of the provisions in H.R. 1906 which we believe if enacted would jeopardize 

the consensus that we have reached in water policy in California. 

For example, we oppose the provisions in paragraph four on page 

33 which would make all taxpayers, as opposed to only Central 

Valley Project beneficiaries, pay the costs associated with the delivery of water to refuges. The Department opposes provisions in section 3 which would 

eliminate all environmental restoration goals for striped bass, sturgeon, and American Shad. We also oppose provisions in the bill 

which would cap at 340,000 acre feet the instream flows of the 

Trinity River. These provisions would subject future flow decisions 

based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Trinity River Flow 

Evaluation Study to formal rulemaking. And additional rulemaking 

will only add an unwarranted and costly level of review to the existing process. 

The Department has been working hard to implement the CVPIA 

on a timely basis. The Department has also responded to water 

users' concerns by making appropriate administrative changes. We 

are willing to continue to meet with stakeholders and to make additional changes. 

Mr. Chairman, we have survived the fourth dryest year of record 

while the CVPIA was in place. We are now in an era of surpluses, 

and the CVPIA continues to work. At this juncture, we see no reason to reopen the Act. Simply put, we think H.R. 1906 is premature and unnecessary. The legislation threatens the historic consensus that has brought together all the stakeholders in Califor-
32 

nia's water issues around the Bay-Delta Accord which was signed last December. 

The Administration believes that reopening the CVPIA-that is, 

revisiting who gets how much water, for what purpose, at what 

price, and under what conditions-will only lead to a return of 

gridlock in California's water policies. We view the CVPIA as an 

important initiative by Congress which in tandem with the BayDelta Accord is bringing back a needed balance and certainty to 

the water picture. For the first time in history, under the CVPIA, 

all the stakeholders are working together to address California's 

water needs. 

At this point, we urge the Congress to give the CVPIA the opportunity to meet the objectives that the Congress established less 

than three years ago. Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and 

I would be happy to answer any questions either now or later. 

[Statement of Mr. Beard may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DoOL.rrTLE. Thank you. I think what we would like to do is 

go through the members of the first panel, and then each of us will 

have a chance to address questions to any member of the panel. I 

would like to recognize Mr. Timothy H. Quinn. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY H. QUINN, DEPUIT GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. QuiNN. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, members of the committee. My name is Timothy Quinn. I am Deputy General Manager at 

the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Today, Bob 

Smith and I are going to summarize for you a statement of a unified Urban Coalition that represents water suppliers in northern 

and southern California. We collectively provide the water needs 

for more than two-thirds of the state's population and economy. 

And both Bob and I would like to recognize the presence of Laura 

King representing East Bay Municipal Utility District who is here 

today, and Laura and her agency were also instrumental in putting 

together this Urban Coalition position. 

In addition to passing on some specific observations that are of 

particular concern to urban California, we would like to leave the 

committee with two general observations. The first and foremost is 

that while we recognize that there is a need for change in CVPIA 

implementation, our central guidepost is that we must protect the 

basic goals and objectives of the 1992 Act. 

Metropolitan and many other urban agencies in the Urban Coalition supported the Act. We agreed with its objectives. We agree 

with them still. And we believe that any change must be done consistent with the original objectives of the 1992 Act. 

Second general observation-that after three years of experience 

in which we have been heavily involved as north and south urban 

agencies, we do believe that both legislative and administrative 

change is required for the most effective implementation of this important piece of legislation. As a general rule, our advice to this 

committee and to the Congress is to rely on administrative relief 

when administrative relief can get the job done. 

As to our specific concerns, I will touch on a few, and Bob Smith 

will cover a few as well. First, and maybe most important, to the 
33 

extent that this legislation moves forward, we would urge the Congress to consider including a new approach to the process of CVPIA 

implementation. 

It is hard to find very many people out there who are satisfied 

with the current federally dominated implementation process. So 

we would urge you to include a new approach in legislation that 

is patterned after what is apparently a widely agreed upon success, 

the Bay-Delta Accord. 

Specifically, the Urban Coalition would recommend a process 

that satisfies two key criteria. First, there should be a co-equal partnership between the state and Federal Governments, something along the lines of that which is being developed within 

CALFED in California. 

Second, we think it is essential that there are meaningful substantive avenues for stakeholder input into decisionmaking, and we 

mean by that urban, agricultural, environmental, and fisheries 

stakeholder interests. 

Because of its importance, I should also take a few moments to 

talk about the Urban Coalition's perspective on the 800,000 acre 

feet of dedicated water, perhaps the most controversial feature of 

the CVPIA. A central tenet of the urban position is that this water 

must remain available primarily for fish and wildlife restoration 

purposes. 

Decisions about the water should be science driven, preferably 

through a state-Federal stakeholder process. At the same time, we 

do believe that the 800,000 acre feet should be capped to provide 

some certainty for CVP water users, and that capping mechanism 

should include a crediting process consistent with the December accord so that other water losses from other regulatory arenas are 

credited against the 800,000 acre feet obligation. 

To assure reliability for the environment, the Urban Coalition 

strongly supports the development of effective and timely methods 

to purchase water to the extent it is required above the 800,000 

acre foot cap. And you can't get there from here without that commitment to environmental water purchases. Lastly, we believe that 

reuse should be acceptable but only if it is understood to be a clearly secondary purpose of the environmental water. 

In closing, we would like to thank the Chairman and members 

of the committee for this opportunity to express our views. I must 

say that taken on its whole, currently H.R. 1906 is not consistent 

with all of the important principles that we are putting before you in our written testimony today. 

For that reason, we cannot support H.R. 1906 in its current form. 

I want to provide assurances to others on the committee that to the 

extent this develops and the Urban Coalition believes it is an effort 

to gut the original Act, we would oppose such legislation. 

However, I say that optimistic that we will be able to work with 

the members of this committee and the other stakeholders to seek 

changes consistent with the principles that we have put before you 

today, and with the result being legislation that can enjoy the support of urban California before we are done. Again, I would thank 

you for the opportunity to present the Urban Coalition position 

today and will be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 
34 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. And Mr. Smith is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SMITH, ASSISTANT GENERAL 

MANAGER, SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you also for this opportunity along with Mr. Quinn to 

present the Bay-Delta Coalition's view on recently introduced 

Central Valley Reform Act legislation. I am Bob Smith. I am the 

Assistant General Manager of the Santa Clara Valley Water District located in San Jose, California. 

The Urban Coalition is a diverse group of both northern and 

southern water agencies who serve very dynamic urban economies. 

Commerce and industry in our combined service areas generate 

over 11 million jobs and over three-fourths of the state's $800 billion gross annual product, representing roughly 10 percent of the 

national and total economy. 

We know that in order for the urban economy to grow and prosper we must bring stability to the environment, particularly to the 

Bay-Delta watershed which generates most of the urban water supplies in California. In his testimony, Mr. Quinn highlighted two 

key concerns of the Bay-Delta Coalition that dealt with establishing a more effective CVPIA implementation process and with the 

management of the 800,000 acre feet of dedicated environmental 

water. 

I would like to highlight a couple of more concerns that the coalition would like to bring to your attention this morning. First, we 

believe that it is critical to address the issue of water supply reliability for the urban areas served by the CVP. One of the stated 

purposes of the CVPIA is to achieve a reasonable balance among 

competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water. 

While the CVPIA defines a minimum 75 percent reliability for 

environmental water allocated to fish and wildlife purposes, it provides very little guidance on how remaining CVP supplies should 

be allocated. Urban populations served by the CVP have suffered 

increased water supply uncertainty, and efforts by Santa Clara and 

other CVP M&I contractors to resolve this uncertainty through administrative remedies have not been successful. As a CVP M&I 

contractor and a member of the Urban Coalition, we believe that 

a minimum level of contract deliveries for M&I purposes should be 

included in the legislation. 

Apart from the fundamental importance of CVP water supplies 

to urban populations and economies, there should be recognition 

that CVP urban contractors are already paying for M&I water supply reliability. Current cost allocation and rate-setting methods 

used by the Bureau of Reclamation assume that water delivered for 

M&I purposes will have greater reliability relative to the irrigation 

purpose, and as a result, M&I water rates are proportionately higher. This financial assumption shifts millions of dollars of cost to 

M&I water users, and it is time to back up that assumption with 

legislative language. 

The Urban Coalition believes that in order for the urban water 

supply to operate effectively and plan for their needs, the reliability 

of the CVP M&I water supply should be defined in H.R. 1906, and 
35 

that the definition of reliability should reflect the economic importance, public interest, and cost allocation factors just discussed. 

Another key concern of the coalition is maintaining levels of 

funding to the restoration fund in a manner sufficient to accomplish the environmental objectives of CVPIA. To the extent that 

provisions of H.R. 1906 decrease revenues to the restoration fund 

through elimination of tiered water rates and contract renewal surcharges, adjustments should be made to ensure revenues are replaced. 

The Urban Coalition also believes that with appropriate amendments H.R. 1906 could provide an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the restoration fund by increasing the certainty of revenues and by providing better coordination of state and Federal restoration funds and a joint state-Federal stakeholder process. 

In closing, I too want to thank the subcommittee and its staff for 

focusing on the CVPIA implementation which is so important, not 

only to urban water users, but to all interests with a stake in resolving the long-term Bay-Delta issues. 

As Tim mentioned, although H.R. 1906 in its present form is not 

consistent with the principles of the Urban Coalition on amendments of the CVPIA, we look forward to working with you and with 

all interested parties to develop appropriate amendments that will 

address our concerns and achieve a bill that we can all support. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

your time, and I too will be available for any questions at the appropriate time. 

[Statement of the Urban Coalition may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Daniel Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL G. NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY 

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

good morning. My name is Dan Nelson. I am the Executive Director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. The Authority is comprised of 31 agricultural and urban water agencies serving 1.3 million acres and 500,000 people in the San Joaquin Valley 

and San Benito and Santa Clara Counties. It also delivers water 

to about 75,000 acres of wetlands on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Since enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

in October of 1992, we, the customers of the CVP and others, have 

struggled along with the Federal agencies to implement the law. At 

the same time, our Authority has been extremely active in BayDelta issues. Our involvement in the Bay-Delta process has helped 

us focus on new and better approaches for implementing water policy and solving problems. 

We and the Bureau agree that there are many problems with the 

implementation of CVPIA. Commissioner Beard has outlined several of those problems today. Where we differ is on how to solve 

them. Water users believe that amending the CVPIA to provide 

certainty and clarity for all parties is the best solution. And, frank-
36 

ly, what the Bureau on the other hand says is, "Trust us. We will 

do the right thing." 

Until recently, however, the Federal agencies have resisted improving the implementation of CVPIA, and they began to show enthusiasm for administrative remedies only when frustrated water 

users began seeking legislative solutions. H.R. 1906 would provide 

badly needed clarification and direction for Federal agencies so that 

environmental improvements can be implemented promptly and effectively. It also would clearly define what are now vague and 

open-ended obligations. 

I want to spend a few moments to address the kinds of things 

that H.R. 1906 does and to clarify what it doesn't do. H.R. 1906 reserves 800,000 acre feet of CVP water for systemwide fisheries protection, mitigation, and restoration. This water also would be used 

to meet ESA and Bay-Delta water quality needs. 

H.R. 1906 requires CVP customers to continue paying more than 

$30 million per year into a restoration fund earmarked for environmental restoration. H.R. 1906 continues to require implementation 

of specific fishery improvements intended to restore or enhance 

Central Valley fish production. It also obligates the Interior Department to work jointly with the state in pursuit of California's 

fish doubling goal. 

H.R. 1906 also maintains Trinity River fish flows of at least 

340,000 acre feet annually while the need for additional flows is 

steady. H.R. 1906 maintains existing guarantees of firm water sup- plies for wetland habitat, and the bill continues to give wildlife refuges priority over agricultural users during shortages. H.R. 1906 

continues to authorize water transfers outside the CVP service 

area, and it speeds transfers within the service area. 

In short, H.R. 1906 continues to provide more than 1.3 million 

acre feet of water and tens of millions of dollars annually for the 

environment, while also facilitating water transfers to other regions of the state. Clearly, H.R. 1906 is not a roll back or gutting 

of CVPIA, and I need to add that our modelers have recently taken 

a look at the impacts of H.R. 1906 in the context of other Federal 

regulations including ESA, the Clean Water Act, Bay-Delta agreement, et cetera. And we anticipate that if H.R. 1906 was imple- mented tomorrow, the average water supplies for most of our members would be in the 65 to 75 percent range. 

H.R. 1906 is not a threat to the Bay-Delta agreement. As a participant in and signatory to the Bay-Delta process and accord, I 

want to reaffirm our commitment to the accord and its full implementation. H.R. 1906 is supportive of the agreement because it will 

aid in the development of a long-term delta solution by providing 

water users with more certainty about the cost and obligations of 

the CVPIA. 

The only people who say the CVPIA is perfect are the people who 

wrote it. I guess it is only natural for them to feel that way, but 

those of us who actually have to live with CVPIA, California's agricultural and urban water agencies, are asking Congress to make 

some reasonable improvements to the CVPIA. 

H.R. 1906 is reasonable despite all of the white hot rhetoric to 

the contrary. It attempts to bring to the CVPIA the balance and 

certainty that are critical to making progress on long-term delta so-
37 

lutions. Water users can't be expected to endorse long-term remedies when they face open-ended CVPIA obligations whose costs 

and consequences are unknown. 

The customers of the CVP strongly support H.R. 1906, but we acknowledge that it can be improved. For example, the ideas put forward by the Urban Coalition are very good, and we look forward 

to working on them with the coalition and the committees. We will 

work with any and all parties who want to rise above the rhetoric 

and make a genuine effort to ensure that the Central Valley 

Project fairly meets the needs of all Californians. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and the committee. We will have some additional written material that we would like to submit for the record later. 

[Statement of Mr. Nelson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. I would just like to observe as a member of this committee, when the original CVPIA was 

put through, I would never have thought of the term consensus as 

applying to that because there wasn't a consensus. There was a 

majority vote, and they had the votes, and we lost. And I wouldn't 

represent there is a consensus now either. The fact of the matter 

is these water issues are highly contentious, but I think some 

things have been brought out that show the need for change. 

I would like to address this question to either Mr. Quinn or Mr. 

Smith. In your written testimony, you state on page three the following, "The Urban Coalition believes that if allowed to continue 

along its current path, CVPIA implementation will continue to deteriorate and eventually polarize Bay-Delta interests to such an extent that comprehensive resolution of long-term Bay-Delta problems will slip from our grasp." 

Would you elaborate further upon that statement? What did you mean? I mean, we have gotten the impression-we have heard basically representations being made that, "Hey, this is a new law. 

Don't get involved, and yet give us time to work it out." But we 

have had the law, I think, about two and a half years on the books, 

and there are some real problems. And you say in your testimony that if we continue to allow the natural course of events, then 

things are going to get worse, not better. 

Mr. QUINN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the urban interests in California over the last five years have done a lot to change California 

water politics. We now work very closely in the coalition interests. 

We are feet-on-the-ground, got-projects-to-operate entities. We have 

to supply water to people and the businesses that employ them. We 

view ourselves as problem solvers. 

As I think our statement indicates, we are strong proponents of 

the change in direction that CVPIA resulted in. We still believe 

that that change was fundamentally important. But there have 

been problems identified by those of us who are working within 

this process on a day to day basis, and we would like to see those 

problems addressed. 

If you don't address problems in this format, on the State Water 

Resources Control Board format, or on the ESA format, we think 

those problems, if left unattended, would also lead to an unraveling 

of consensus and solution finding. Our Coalition statement essentially recognizes that we believe there are problems to be solved, 

and we would like to take a responsible position to try and draw 
38 

all the parties together to come up with mutually agreeable solutions so that we can solve them. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. The only consensus I am aware of occurred in 

the Bay-Delta Accord which is a remarkable situation. I mean, do 

you believe there is consensus? Is there another example of consensus out there? 

Mr. QUINN. Let me risk this answer that I believe there was consensus-that there is consensus now, that the objectives of the 

CVPIA are important and remain important. I think there is consensus on that question. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. I will give you that. OK. 

Mr. QUINN. And now we need to seek to find out how many people we can draw to a common vision of what kind of implementation process is the best for achieving that common view of what we 

need to do. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, do you believe that this bill advances the 

process or retards it? 

Mr. QUINN. I believe with appropriate change it could advance 

the process. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Let me ask Mr. Nelson, do we have more 

water transfers going on since CVPIA became law or less? 

Mr. NELSON. My impression is that since CVPIA, water transfers 

have actually been hampered. We haven't realized any transfers to 

my recollection outside the CVPIA, and the transfers within the 

CVPIA that used to be fairly normal and day-to-day type operations or within day-to-day type operations have now been much 

more burdensome. 

And my sense is that that is one of the things-again, going back 

to consensus, that we all have a consensus, is that we want to see 

transfers work better than they are working now and that we do 

want to provide opportunities for water to be transferred and for 

people to be compensated for water that is being reallocated. So the 

short answer is, no, CVPIA as implemented has not helped transfers; in fact, has hindered it. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. As implemented. What about as the 

statute reads? What is contributing to the slowdown in the transfers? 

Mr. NELSON. Well, prior to CVPIA, the criteria for transferring 

water within the project was very simple. Essentially, it could be 

accommodated by a few phone calls between participating districts, 

cooperating districts, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and water 

could be transferred from district to district very simply. With the 

criteria in CVPIA, unfortunately, affecting those types of transfers, 

the criteria is much more burdensome. Also the---

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Now, this is the statutory criteria you are referring to? 

Mr. NELSON. That is correct. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. So that is going to be tough to fix administratively, wouldn't you agree? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Beard, my time is about up. What is 

your view of that? 

Mr. BEARD. As was pointed out, we haven't had any requests for 

transfers outside of the Central Valley Project service area as of 
39 

yet. There is consensus that we have to find ways to create incentives to move water around. 

My view is I don't think we have enough experience yet to know 

what the impediments are, whether the impediments are the district, whether they are Bureau of Reclamation procedures and 

practices, or whether it is the law. It is not for lack of trying, believe me. Our agency, Mr. Quinn and others have worked long and 

hard to try our very best to make sure that we have as many 

transfers as possible. I don't know whether Mr. Quinn wants to 

comment. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you wish to comment, Mr. Quinn? You don't 

need to. It is up to you. 

Mr. QUINN. I am anticipating questions about this down the 

road. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. OK. Well, my time is up. Let us go on to Mr. 

Miller. We will get back to the water transfers when we get around 

to me again. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beard, how many applications have there been for water transfers outside of districts 

outside of the project? 

Mr. BEARD. None. To us for approval, you mean? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. Well, I mean, it happensMr. BEARD. Under the CVPIA there have been a number that 

have been discussed. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. CVPIA. The transfer would have to 

come for Secretarial approval. Is that correct? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. Have any been submitted to you for transfer? 

Mr. BEARD. No. 

Mr. MILLER. What about within the districts or within the 

project? 

Mr. BEARD. Within districts? We had 31 in 1994 for official ap- proval and 33 this year. 

Mr. MILLER. So what was the impact of the CVPIA on the ap- proval of those? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, they were all approved; 3 to 60 days to approve them. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Mr. Nelson said it has made it much more 

complicated-the CVPIA-the criteria in the legislation has made 

it more complicated. I didn't even know there were criteria in the 

legislation for in-district transfers-! mean, in project transfers. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, there are. 

Mr. MILLER. What has been the impact of those? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, at least from the Bureau's perspective it has 

not added burdensome requirements or slowed down the process. 

But Mr. Nelson may have a different view. And, I happen to be of 

the view that the most important thing is to find a process that is 

effective, efficient, and quick so that we can all meet the objectives that we agree we want to try to achieve. 

Mr. MILLER. The issue of stakeholders was brought up in the testimony, Mr. Beard, and I think Mr. Quinn had some good things 

to say on that. But what happened to the initial efforts. Weren't 

there some efforts to try to create an advisory committee or stake-
40 

holders committee or what have you to work this through? What 

happened with that? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, we went out to the various interest groups that 

we deal with on a regular basis and asked for their views about 

the possibility of setting up an advisory committee of some kind 

under the appropriate Federal laws. 

And I think the conclusion that was reached by all the various 

interests was they weren't interested in having a fonnal advisory 

body created. They didn't think that it was necessary, and they felt 

that the processes and procedures that we have been using for public outreach were more than sufficient to ensure that they were engaged on a day-to-day basis. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, is there stakeholder involvement or isn't there 

stakeholder involvement? 

Mr. BEARD. Oh, there is continual stakeholder involvement. We 

are holding meetings almost every day on all the various provisions. The Act itself requires somewhere near 100 separate actions 

to take place, and most of those actions are underway at the 

present time. About 10 of those are subject to rulemaking procedures and will take longer for final rules to be in place. But we 

have had innumerable meetings. There is also no shortage of briefings, and we have made a conscious effort to do that. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, there seems to be a rub between your interpretation and your colleagues' at the table in tenns of you cite a 

number of things that you have done administratively. Have the 

stakeholders presented you with a consensus package, if you will, 

on administrative changes? Has there been agreement at the stakeholder level that has been presented to you and saying, "This is 

whatwe"--

Mr. BEARD. Nothing to fit that description, no. There hasn't been 

anybody walking in the door and laying something down on the 

table. I think this bill would represent the most comprehensive list 

of suggested changes; representing one viewpoint or a number of 

viewpoints, if you will. 

Mr. MILLER. So the notion that there are these administrative 

changes that are just hanging out there because the Bureau or the 

Secretary or somebody hasn't gone along with them is not quite accurate because one of those recommendations may, in fact, be opposed by another stakeholder? Is that correct? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. We made a number of administrative changes 

in our practices through the contracting procedures. We have also 

made a number of changes through letters or other administrative 

decisionmaking processes, and we will continue to do that. 

It is not like we don't talk to the people at the table and the people in the audience here on a regular basis. We are in contact on 

a daily basis discussing all these issues. And we have had interruptions now and then, but we have proven that when we get together, 

sit around a table, and people are serious about it, we can forge 

compromises and consensus such as the Bay-Delta Accord. 

Mr. MILLER. Back to the in-project transfers, have you disapproved any of those? 

Mr. BEARD. Any of the in-basin? No. 

Mr. MILLER. Those requirements that you talked about are questions of whether or not it confers additional rights and/or is in com-
41 

pliance with state law, is it not? So those have been reviewed and 

those have been--

Mr. BEARD. We haven't disapproved any, no. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, how are we going to 

handle the questioning? Mr. DooLITTLE. I think we are going to go back and forth-the 

normal fashion of questioning. We will get to you, Mr. Farr. Is that 

all right? OK. Mr. Radanovich is recognized. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there is a 

bit of discussion going on regarding legislative fixes and administrative fixes, and I want to relate a story that might address the 

concern for a cap or in the legislation on a cap on the 340,000 acre 

foot instream flow on the Trinity River as it relates to the current 

study on the San Joaquin River and some of the experiences that 

I had with that administratively. The point I am trying to make is that at least in the San Joaquin 

River Study we had a project that was supposed to be studied with 

the results brought up in 1996, $5 million allocated for it. And during an election year, it was brought up by Secretary Babbitt-a 

guarantee that no water would come from the San Joaquin River 

or from California agriculture in order to go into and fund a fishery 

that might be proposed by this project in 1996. Well, clearly, that 

means that there should be no study, and that study should be 

stopped because there is no other place that there would be water 

coming for that. 

It was announced that that was the case, but it was also concluded that that study would continue again until 1996. And it left 

the whole thing in jeopardy and an enormous amount of uncertainty. And it speaks to the requested cap on Trinity River 

instream flows simply because it leaves too much to the Administration. That could go from 340,000 acre feet to 2 million acre feet 

overnight. 

And I think that if you want to provide some type of security to 

this process, you have got to tie in the loose ends on that. And I 

think that it is unfair to expect people on the other side to anticipate that administrative fixes would give any security to the water 

surply in the area. 

want to ask a question of Mr. Quinn, Mr. Smith and Mr. Nelson-just a brief yes or no, and that was with this proposed 

change, CVPRA as it is being called, do you believe that it maintains the original objective of the 1992 Act? 

Mr. QUINN. We believe that it could with appropriate change. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The same, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Smith, care to 

provide me with-not here in this testimony but in written formwhat you would suggest the changes might need to be in order to 

make that the case then? 

Mr. QUINN. We have every intention of so doing. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Nelson, 

there was discussion regarding transfers, and I guess your statement-was that regarding in-district transfers or was that out-of-
42 

district transfers?-your comment about the fact that the 1992 legislation stalled the process or made it more difficult. 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. I was referring to in-project transfers. In other 

words, one CVP contractor transferring to a neighboring CVP contractor as an example. And one of the comments that was made 

that all of them have been approved within a 3 to 60 day time period, well, that is exactly the type of problem that we have been 

confronted with. 

A lot of the transfers that we need to do for optimal management 

reasons need to be done almost immediately. I mean, when it is 

mid-May and you find that you don't have enough water for your 

crop and you want to purchase some water from a neighbor, you 

can't wait until July or August to have approval to do that. I think 

what we have done is put our finger on the exact problem that we 

are having, and that is the timing of approval under the CVPIA 

criteria that wasn't in place prior to that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am aware of another transfer that is stuck 

in the Courts regarding a Mr. Areias on the west side, and it seems 

to me that that one isn't transferring very smoothly, or is that a 

different issue? 

Mr. QUINN. If you would like, I can speak with some authority 

to that particular case. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, I guess I am speaking of the fact that it 

is not maybe as smooth as-you know, I mean, there are bugs that 

need to be worked out, and hopefully this legislation addresses the 

bugs that need to be worked out. 

Mr. QUINN. Well, with the Chairman's permission, if I might give 

you an update. I have spent my entire career as a champion of the 

water market in California. There was a time when only people like Tom Graff and Tim Quinn in a group like this would favor the 

idea. We have moved considerably beyond that. I also happened to 

have been the negotiator on behalf of Metropolitan with the Areias 

dairy farm's transfer. 

From our perspective, it would not be fair to characterize the 

original Act as hindering our opportunities because our opportunities were zero prior to the passage of the Act. So one of the things 

we fought for was the ability to move water out of the project on 

a voluntary basis. We have learned a considerable amount though 

in the last three years. 

Within a month, we were approached by the Areias dairy farms, 

and they proposed a transfer. We earnestly negotiated that transfer. It took quite a while to work out the details. After about eight 

or nine months, we went public. If you think of the Fram oil filter 

man, ''You pay me now or you pay me later," that is how it is dealing with the agricultural districts. 

We had thousands of people showing up to public meetings in 

Los Banos, California, and we are, quite frankly, learning the lesson that finding a way to work cooperatively with the districts is 

probably going to be more effective for transferring water. This is 

going to be a tough one for the urbans. 

My board has given me very clear instructions to make sure that 

I protect the transfer provisions and their effectiveness if this legislation moves forward. So we are certainly prepared to talk about 

and potentially agree with a clear role for approval by the districts. 
43 

There are three things that we will be watching for. First, a clear 

set of criteria that guide district decisions; second, an appeal process to the Secretary of Interior; and the third thing is to create 

some sort of mechanism through which the district must create a 

district transfer program if its landowners want to. 

And we think that those kinds of changes if handled appropriately could result in a more effective transfer mechanism than 

we have right now considering the controversy surrounding the 

Areias dairy farms transfer. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Dooley is recognized. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Mr. Beard, I would like to just address 

some of the issues associated with the clarification of the 800,000 

acre feet and its disposition. Would you agree that H.R. 1906 in its 

clarification of the 800,000 acre feet is fairly consistent with the 

way that the 800,000 acre feet was accounted for in the Bay-Delta 

Accord? 

Mr. BEARD. I am not sure that I can answer that question because I am not altogether sure that we have in practice developed 

the knowledge that we need to be able to say with any specificity 

how the 800,000 acre feet has been used. I think it is fair to say 

as you look back on what has happened, it is important to give a 

little bit of history. I think it helps to put this issue in perspective 

because there is no issue that is more controversial. 

The legislation was passed in October of 1992. The first year, 

1993, that we had to operate under this, frankly, was a dry year, 

and it was a year in which everybody was racing around trying to 

figure out what was in the bill and who was going to do what and 

how they were going to do it. 

In 1994, we were enjoined from implementing the 800,000 acre 

feet provisions as a result of a Court action so that this year is the 

first year we have even had an opportunity to address the issue of 

how we would approach the 800,000 acre feet with any specificity. And I really think that is an important provision, and we have 

been working with the stakeholders involved. 

We believe we have a process laid out on how we are going to 

try to address the 800,000 acre feet. It is a process that is fair, and 

it is one that will give people the information they need when they 

need it. The Fish and Wildlife is going to determine the necessary 

flows that they need to meet the goals of the Act. In April of each 

year, the Department will determine the type of water year that 

we are having and as a result, what we need for carryover storage 

and anticipate--

Mr. DOOLEY. I would just interrupt, because I guess I was under 

the assumption that there was a general consensus about the 

800,000 acre feet. It was a part of the Bay-Delta agreement and 

was consistent with the position that it would be inclusive of obligations by the Central Valley Project of ESA and clean water 

standards. Was that not your interpretation, Mr. Beard? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. For the life of the agreement. 

Mr. DOOLEY. And how long is that? 

Mr. BEARD. Three years. 

Mr. DOOLEY. And are you saying that the Bureau then has not 

adopted that beyond that three years? 
44 

Mr. BEARD. No. I think that during the three-year period the 

State Water Resources Control Board is going to take certain actions which are going to-at least everybody is anticipating-impact the system and the use of the 800,000 acre feet. 

Mr. DoOLEY. Well, I guess this is where a lot of us are struggling. When we look at which issues can be handled administratively versus which need to be handled legislatively, obviously, we 

have an issue here where we are going to have some disagreements 

of opinion. And it cannot be--l guess some people would argue--

clarified by the underlying legislation, the CVPIA. Some of us think 

it is because of a lack of reflection of the report language. 

Even if the Bureau issued an opinion that was consistent with 

what is in the Bay-Delta Accord, there is still the potential for 

problems because of the lack of specificity in the underlying legislation. You could be subject to litigation by the environmental community, for example, could you not? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. We have been sued a number of times already. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Well, and I guess that is where I have a difficult 

time understanding why the Bureau is not supportive of actions by 

Congress to clarify and remove some of the ambiguity of that 

800,000 acre feet. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think the fairest thing to say, Congressman, 

is that I honestly don't think we have enough information to know 

what kind of changes we would recommend to you be made or if 

any changes should be made at all. 

As I said, we have developed a process to go through this year, 

and we have outlined a procedure for the next three years. We 

have made certain commitments about how we will approach it 

through the Bay-Delta Accord with the agreement of the state. The 

State Board is now in the process of looking at the possibility of 

other stakeholders, or water right holders I guess would be a better 

way to put it, participating with the Federal project and state 

project. 

And that is going to change the landscape--the actions of the 

State Board will. So at the end of this three-year period under the 

Bay-Delta agreement, we are all going to be looking at a different 

landscape than we have today. I think we will have a better idea 

at that point as to what the impacts will be on each individual 

class of user. 

There is an assumption that is made by some people that 

800,000 acre feet comes from agriculture and it comes every year. 

That isn't the case. This year we know, to meet the goals outlined 

in the Act, we are going to need less than 800,000 acre feet. The 

real difficulty comes in a dry year. The question, then, is who is 

impacted and who is going to contribute. And the landscape we will 

deal with in three years is going to be different than the landscape 

we will deal with today. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Mr. Pombo is recognized. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. There is something you said, Mr. Beard, 

that I am a little bit confused on. You said that this is the first 

year that you have implemented the 800,000 acre feet and that 

previously to this you were unable to do that. But last year I was 

told that you were keeping 200,000 acre feet in New Melones because of the CVPIA requirements on the 800,000 acre feet. 
45 

Mr. BEARD. Let me ask Mr. Patterson to address your question 

because I think it is a fair question to address. Roger, why don't 

you move up to the table? 

Mr. POMBO. Just pull your chair up there, Roger. 

Mr. PATTERSON. What was the question? 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Beard said that this is the first year you will 

be able to implement the 800,000 acre foot reduction because in 

previous years you were either enjoindered or you didn't have time 

to do it. Last year, I was told that you were keeping 200,000 acre 

feet in New Melones because of the 800,000 acre foot reduction in 

CVPIA. And I think those two statements are contradictory, and I 

would like that explained to me. 

Mr. PATTERSON. I think what the commissioner was referring to 

is that this is the first year with the 800,000 that there hasn't been 

some external influence. In 1994, we were enjoined for part of the 

year from being able to dedicate and utilize the 800,000 acre feet. 

Prior to being enjoined in March I think it was, we had utilized a 

small amount of the 800,000. 

Once we had the injunction lifted, we were back in a position to 

finish up the year and use some of the 800,000 which is what we 

did at New Melones Reservoir. 

So we had an interrupted year, if you will, in 1994. This is the 

first year that we have not had something like that. And this is 

also the first year that we have been clear on how we would credit 

the Bay-Delta component against the 800,000. 

Mr. POMBO. So it is basically incorrect to say that you have not 

done it before this year, but this is the first year you will be able 

to do it for the whole year? 

Mr. PATTERSON. In 1993-as we started into the operating year, 

we were just a few months into CVPIA-there was a prescription 

made by Fish and Wildlife, and water was dedicated and utilized, 

I would say, on a very interim basis. 

Mr. POMBO. So in 1993 how many acre feet was set aside under 

CVPIA? 

Mr. PATTERSON. In 1993, essentially all of the 800,000 was utilized. 

Mr. POMBO. And in 1994, how many acre feet were set aside 

under CVPIA? 

Mr. PATTERSON. In 1994, because of the injunction, there was 

less than 100,000 acre feet utilized. 

Mr. POMBO. What about the 200,000 out at New Melones? 

Mr. PATTERSON. The 200,000 acre feet was storage. It was not 

yieldMr. POMBO. By what authority did you set aside the 200,000 acre 

feet? If it was not CVPIA, what was it? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I don't think it is fair to characterize it as it was 

set aside. We basically made a decision to go into the fall with 

higher storage in New Melones in order to be able to meet fall 

flows and to be able to have some temperature capability on the 

Stanislaus that fall. So to say there was 200,000 acre feet set aside 

I don't think is a fair characterization. 

Mr. POMBO. I would say it is a fair characterization because it 

was 200,000 acre feet in a drought year that was not released because of a certain reason. You say it was because of fall flows and 
46 

temperature controls. I believe that is because of the CVPIA that 

you had the authority to do that, and that was under the CVPIA 

that you were acting. So if we go back to 1993, you set aside the 

800,000. In 1994, I know of 200,000-I am not sure of the entire 

system, if there was anything else-so to say that this is the first 

year you have done it is not exactly correct. It may be the firstwell, it is not even the first year that you have done a full 800,000 

so--

Mr. PATTERSON. That is what l said. This is the first year without extenuating circumstances-1993, brand new law, very quick 

prescription made for operation of the 800,000. 1994, we had the 

injunction during part of the year. And 1995 is the year underway. 

Part of the problem with the 200,000 earmarked-and you are correct-there was additional storage held in New Melones-is the 

measurement of the 800,000 is done on a yield basis. 

It is not only how much did you have to keep in storage, so that 

right or wrong was the decision that was made, and that is the reason we did it. 

Mr. POMBO. I would like to ask Mr. Beard one more question, 

and it has to do with the legislative fix. On areas where you are 

in agreement or at least partial agreement with what we want to 

do in terms of a legislative fix, I don't understand why you would 

not want us to do that and would only want to do it administratively. That is confusing to me because, you know, regardless of 

this Administration or who your successor will be, we don't know 

who is going to be there six months from now. We don't know who 

is going to be there two years from now. 

And it would seem like if we can come to a consensus on what 

it should say and what the intention was or what we learned over 

the three years of implementation, that we should make those 

changes so that your agency is bound by it, but also the water 

users have some certainty in knowing this is what the law is, and 

this is what we mean by that so that you don't get an injunction 

against you or that you don't get a lawsuit against you. 

I am a little bit confused as to why you would not want that. I 

could understand in areas where you disagree with this, but I 

think there is a number of areas where you do agree with us. 

Mr. BEARD. We have two reasons. Well, first of all, let me say 

to you that where there is consensus among all the parties, the 

form by which you lock in the agreement is to me less important 

than the fact that you have reached consensus. 

There are probably two reasons why legislation is not the best 

way to go. First is that things change, and, when you reach agreement and you lock it in legislatively, over time conditions change, 

and legislation is a very difficult thing to change. One of the reasons we haven't moved a bill (You move a bill on the CVP about 

once every 20 years) is for the very reasons we have had this morning. 

It is a very contentious enterprise, and it takes a long time. So 

that if conditions do change and you are locked into a legislative 

fix of some kind, it is difficult. And one of the best examples of that 

is Trinity. At the time that the Trinity division was authorized in 

the early 1950's, the commitment was made that they were guaran-
47 

teed minimum flows to preserve and protect the fishery of the Trinity River. 

And the question was how much water is that? And the Fish and 

Wildlife Service gave their best guess as to how much water that 

was. Well, it turned out the answer was wrong. It wasn't enough 

water, and the Congress recognized that in 1992. And now, you are 

dealing with it here again. So that is the first reason that I think 

it is important. 

The second reason I think that legislation is not the ideal way 

to approach many of these problems is that there is a tendency 

when legislating to skip over the most difficult problems and say, 

''Well, that is something somebody els&-the agency-can figure 

out in regulations or whatever." 

Time after time we have struggled administratively with trying 

to resolve problems where the general guidance provided by the 

Congress was not specific. And so it is difficult in legislation to be 

as specific as you need to be to protect everybody's interests. So 

those would be the two primary reasons why I think some other 

form may be the right way. 

There may be issues where we can all agree that legislation is 

the right way to go, and that is fine. But as a general matter, to 

answer your question, that is how I would approach it. 

Mr. NELSON. May I have the opportunity to comment on that if 

it is appropriate? . Mr. DOOLITTLE. His time is expired. Let us catch it in some other 

fashion. Mr. Farr is recognized. 

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

follow up on Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Dooley's observation; essentially, the issues of administrative solutions versus legislative solutions. It seems to me just from the testimony we have had here 

today, and I think we are getting down to the nitty-gritty, that if 

you don't have essentially a system that allows all users and all 

benefactors of it to come to some kind of consensus, the remedy is 

lawsuit. 

That ties up the solution whether it be a legislative or administrative solution. So it is in our best interest-all of our best interest 

to try to figure out how to deal with this complex situation without 

losing players to the Courts, essentially seeking remedy in the 

Courts to jam it rather than to solve it. 

And I guess what I am very interested in following up on on 

their questioning, Commissioner Beard, is, I mean, you are leaving, 

and you have certainly made a big commitment to this. I notice 

that in Senator Boxer's comment that she believes that the way to 

improve the CVPIA must be to exhaust all possible administrative 

solutions before legislative solutions. How much of the issues 

raised in the bill, in 1906, can be solved administratively, and are 

there any provisions that we really need some legislative correction 

on? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think most of them can be dealt with; but 

there are some that are just difficult and can't be removed; where 

there are specific things in the base statute you can't get around. 

One example that comes to mind is tiered pricing. Tiered pricing 

is required under the statute in all future long-term contracts. 

Now, there are instances where I think we all agree that maybe 
48 

that is not the best way to do it. Using the mechanism of price to 

promote efficiency and conservation is a good idea, but it may be 

that we cannot overcome that problem. 

Mr. F ARR. So this bill could be a vehicle for solving some of the 

administrative problems thatMr. BEARD. Yes. But that is not going to be a problem until 

about 1997 or 1998. We are doing the programmatic EIS, and until 

we are finished with that and negotiate the contracts, we don't 

need to fix that problem. So it is not a problem that has to be fixed 

in the next two months. 

Mr. FARR. Well, do you have to do all the administrative fixes 

that need to be done? Do you have adequate staff? Because it 

seems to me that if we can't administratively handle that, even if 

you jam the system with more law, you are not going to be able 

to get that law implemented. 

Mr. BEARD. I think everybody agrees we have adequate staff. It 

is really great when you are leaving. You can say all kinds of 

things. I think the staff has done a remarkable job. This is a complex piece of legislation. These are complex issues. They are fundamentally important, and the people in the Bureau and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the other Federal-agencies have worked 

very hard to try their best to meet the legislative deadlines. And 

I think they have done a good job. 

Mr. FARR. I think we need to build some confidence into the system right now, that if we could build that confidence, we could subvert some of the lawsuits that I think have been filed and may be 

filed. And let me just give you an example. Little Pajaro Valley in 

Santa Cruz County, right on the--Pajaro River runs into the ocean, 

we have big salt water intrusion problems there. We get all our 

water right out of the aquifer. 

The best alternative the water management district has looked 

at is essentially honoring the contract that they have entered into 

for 19,000 acre feet from the CVPIA. But because they are sort of 

the last in that, they have not gotten their commitment. And with 

the EIS, I mean, they are told, ''Well, we don't know whether we 

can honor that 19,000 acre feet," and so they are left in this incredible dilemma that the best solution for them is now tied up in essentially administrative delay. 

I mean, that is a common sense approach. They have got a contract out there. It is not for a heck of a lot of water, but we need 

to somehow find a resolution to a problem like that before the 

ocean beats them to the punch. 

Another question I would like to ask to Dan Nelson is essentially 

the CVPIA currently allows the Secretary to reduce the refuge 

water allocations by up to 25 percent. In times of drought or in 

other water shortages, the bill changes the discretionary authority 

to a mandatory duty if there is a shortage. And then the Secretary 

must reduce refuge allocations. 

The question I have is why do you think that that change is necessary for agriculture? And if indeed we are trying to base our decisions on science, then how much water would be necessary for agriculture in situations like that? 

Mr. NELSON. First of all, to put that into context, the shortage 

provisions that are in 1906 for refuge supplies, you have to under-
49 

stand that south of the delta we have chronic water shortages, and 

that the CVPIA in the context of conveyance problems south of the 

delta essentially reallocated about 200 to 250,000 acre feet of water 

once used for agriculture to refuge supplies. 

Not only did it reallocate water from agriculture for the refuges-a direct reallocation, but it also prioritized the wetlands 

used, capping their shortage provisions at 25 percent while agriculture can go down to as low as zero percent and did indeed go 

down to 25 percent during part of the drought and as a result of 

the ESA. 

I think what agriculture has done has acknowledged the importance of the Pacific Flyway and has always supported water for 

wetlands. Essentially, what they are looking for is some balance 

and reasonableness. They think that by capping the 25 percent 

shortage provision to the refuges in drought years is reasonable. 

And this is also in the context of category four water which is 

in addition to the ongoing level two water that we have capped the 

shortages. And so what I think it is, it is an acknowledgement and 

a confirmation that water for the wetlands is good and should be 

maintained, and I think it is a reasonable approach. 

Mr. FARR. So I am not sure. Are you supporting the discretionary 

approach or the mandatory approach? 

Mr. NELSON. The mandatory approach. 

Mr. F ARR. OK. 

Mr. NELSON. In addition to that, let me say that we are working 

with and have had developed good dialog with the refuge people 

and anticipate continued discussions. 

Mr. FARR. In closing, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me, you 

know, there is really a fairness issue, and that is if you are going 

to be in a drought, everybody ought to have to sacrifice something. 

And I think one of the ways you try to do that is bringing in best 

water management practices as well. 

When agriculture is doing it, I am very proud of the fact that 

California agriculture has almost led the world in it. I mean, Israel 

came here and learned from us; went back there and improved on 

it. But California was where water practices began, and we ought 

to not lose sight of the fact that we need to continue to do that. 

And hopefully then we will survive all kinds of droughts. 

I am lastly wanting to know about-it seems to me that we have 

never utilized our water policy with our land policy. In California, 

we have the Williamson Act. We have given tax breaks to agriculture as long as they commit themselves to remain in agriculturally zoned lands. And yet we have never adjusted water pricing to 

say that lands that are so dedicated ought to receive at least the 

fairest or cheapest price for water because we know that they have 

made a long-term commitment to be in agriculture. 

Maybe we ought to adjust, Mr. Chairman, in your bill where Mr. 

Beard says we may need some structural water pricing changes. I 

would like to see us build incentives in so that our land policy is 

consistent with our water pricing policy. Any response? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The time is limited, gentlemen. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure that reliability for urban areas is part of that same equation on pricing. 

Pricing should reflect reliability of supplies. 
50 

Mr. FARR. We will suggest that if those cities would put urban 

limit lines so that they would preserve agriculture and keep urban 

sprawl. What I see happening is you can buy water for agriculture 

and then turn around and use that water for houses, and I don't 

think that is fair public policy. 

Mr. SMITH. I agree. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. We would like to thank the witnesses. Yes? 

Well, we have got two other panels to go. Is it your desire to have 

a second round of questioning? 

Mr. MILLER. It is, Mr. Chairman. Under the rules, we are entitled to question each of the witnesses, and I would request my 

rights under that rule, as with any other member who wants to do 

so. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Quinn, can you lay 

out for me, and some of it is hit upon in the combined testimony, 

but your view on the long-term contracts and the renewal of longterm contracts? In this case, we would specifically talk about agricultural contracts, and then we can go to municipal contracts if you 

would like. But, first, what your view or what your coalition position is on those contracts? 

Mr. QUINN. We have two principles, and let me start with the observation we don't think anybody has come up with the right words 

yet as far as we are concerned. Our two principles--first is water 

supply certainly for entities suppling water to an economies that 

depend on a sustained long-term supply. We are sympathetic with 

the notion that there should be renewals assured by the Congress 

for people trying to meet urban or agricultural water supplies. So 

on the one hand, we think it is appropriate for the Congress to establish a policy that says, "Your economy will have the water that 

it needs over the long-term." On the other hand, and the more difficult portion from our perspective, is we think it is imperative that the terms and conditions 

of those contracts are changeable over time to reflect the needs in 

agriculture, urban, and environmental circumstances at the time of 

renewal. 

So what we are looking for is a process that on the one hand provides assurances to a local economy that it will have the water supply part of its infrastructure over the long-term, and on the other 

hand that the terms and conditions of those contracts will be 

changeable so that they can reflect, as necessary, changing circumstances in the future. 

Mr. MILLER. When you say changeable, you mean as to what? 

Mr. QUINN. As to all terms and conditions in the contract-price, 

quantity, other provisions. We would generally like to see language 

that allows change in a flexible manner, recognizes the importance 

of change without very many restrictions on what could be changed 

in the future. 

Mr. MILLER. As I understand the language currently, it would 

change it from a discretionary power of the Secretary to renew the 

contracts to a mandatory renewal after the first 25 years? Under 

the law now you would get 25, and then it would be discretionary 

at that point. Under 1906, they would turn that into mandatory. 

So that is inconsistent with--
51 

Mr. QuiNN. We believe that it is necessary to add to that some 

process that will assure that there is adequate ability to change 

terms and conditions of contracts when they are, in fact, renewed. 

Mr. MILLER. One of the intents obviously was to try to bring 

water law and the authority to deal with the diversity of the State 

of California in terms of water users so that we could make contemporary decisions based upon contemporary knowledge and situation. 

And that obviously includes the ability to move quantity, but it 

is very difficult to see how you do much about quantity in urban 

areas where you have people who are down in three-bedroom, twobath homes, with all due respect, and using water for daily sustenance of themselves. We could go through water conservation and 

all that, but eventually you are talking about sustaining human 

life. 

And so the question starts to become where is the shock absorber 

in the system? It is in the environment. It is in agriculture. Because although it obviously impacts farmers, families, and communities, at some point it also gets down to the question of whether 

it is cotton or melons or whatever the various agricultural products 

of California. 

The keeping open of the Secretary or at some point down the 

road perhaps it will be the governor or the director of water resources if the nature of this project changes-that flexibility it 

seems to me to be absolute paramount in terms of the future water 

needs and the competing needs of the State of California. Do you 

agree or disagree? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, let me clarify that from Metropolitan's perspective looking from the outside of the CVP service area to the inside. 

One of the areas we are looking to for flexibility is voluntary transfers, and in that respect, this argument cuts both ways. If we negotiate for a transfer, generally longer term transfers under some circumstances are desirable, and we basically would think we ought 

to be subject to the same criteria as a transfer if we acquire a longterm water supply. 

On the one hand, we would like to know that to some degree we 

will be able to count on that water supply. At the same time, we 

are amenable to the notion that we should be subject to changing 

terms and conditions under which that supply is delivered in the 

future. 

Mr. MILLER. But at some point the water supply-if I enter into 

a long-term transfer with you in the first year of my 25 years and 

you get a 25-year transfer, that is long-term. But at some point in 

the next 25 years should I really still be empowered to be the middle man, if you will, the middle person here to convey that water 

which many of your taxpayers already paid for? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, I think ultimately--

Mr. MILLER. I mean, now I am no longer a farmer selling you my 

water. I am talking about renewing my annuity. 

Mr. QUINN. Tbe first part of our position, Congressman, is that 

we don't think it is appropriate to go to a local area and say, "And 

we might cut your water supply off in its entirety in 25 years." We 

have got a 75-year contract for state supplies that is renewable. We 

have got no term in our Colorado River supplies. We are willing to 
52 

live with changing circumstances and have put our money where 

our mouth is in the last decade and will continue to do so. 

But we think you ought to stop short of sending a signal that, 

''You might lose your water supply in its entirety in the future." 

Therefore, assurances of some sort of contract subject to appropriate changes in terms and conditions is where we would like to 

see the process come down. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is my point. And I guess my point is as 

I read what you say the Urban Coalition position is, that not only 

includes quantity, but it also states that that provision that you 

would support is not in this legislation? 

Mr. QUINN. We' do not believe that the legislation currently adequately addresses our principles. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Quinn, do you believe that water districts will be induced to transfer water when the Secretary has discretion not to renew their contract after that one-time, 25-year renewal as contained in the CVPIA? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, we certainly don't want it to be the case that 

agreeing to transfer with us would put your long-term water access 

at risk. You will chase a lot of sellers away that way; again, consistent with the answer I tried to give Mr. Miller. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Well, my question is if water districts that have 

a right to water are thinking about engaging one of these long-term 

transfers but it turns out they don't really know whether they are 

going to get renewed, it seems reasonable to suppose they may be 

inhibited from entering into such transfers. What do you think 

about that? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, I think that is a concern. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Therefore, one could conclude we need to change 

that provision within the existing CVPIA. Correct? 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is what H.R. 1906 attempts to do. Do 

you agree with the provision that H.R. 1906 contains; the reference 

to the change made in the renewability of those contracts? 

Mr. QUINN. In our view, there are two key principles. H.R. 1906 

accomplishes the first. We are not certain yet that it accomplishes 

the second. We will likely include suggested language in our response to Mr. Radanovich and others in terms of what kind of 

changes we would like to see to fulfill our principles adequately. 

Mr. DoOLITl'LE. Now, Mr. Beard, you said the CVPIA was enacted or its first year was in a drought year. But, I mean, we have 

had a six-year drought. I think the bill was actually enacted in a 

drought year as reasonably foreseeable-in fact, there are many I 

think who believe that notwithstanding the huge precipitation of 

this current year that we are in that actually we are in a period 

of dry years. 

Should that be the case, I mean, the CVPIA has got to be able 

to contemplate those kinds of years. We have heard we have got 

chronic water shortages south of the delta anyway, and we have 

got to make it work. So I am a little bit concerned that that is 

being used as the justification for not having made further progress 

here because I think-! mean, I hope I am wrong, but I am afraid 
53 

we might have more dry years than we are going to have wet years 

in the future. And I guess that is an observation to you. And the question I would have of you is, since we are going 

through this second round of questioning here; in the next round 

of questioning we are going to hear from Friant, and in their written testimony the representation is made that even though tiered 

pricing isn't in effect yet because, as you indicated, it doesn't go 

into effect for several years, that the Bureau is requiring this now 

at the district to grower level, and that the Bureau is requiring approval of the district's conservation plans. Can you comment upon 

those things? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, one of the things that we have tried to do is 

work our way around the-let me back up. We recognize that the 

tiered pricing as laid out in the statute may not be the best way 

to handle the problems at Friant. So what we did in the water conservation criteria is require the district to put into place a pricing 

mechanism which would promote conservation-referred to as a 

tiered pricing mechanism to promote conservation. 

Now, if we find, through the experience with our plans, that that 

is not the most effective way and that it is counterproductive, we 

are certainly willing to go back and look at our criteria and make 

sure that they are effective. We have required about 114 conservation plans, and we have received about 89. Twenty-five of them 

really don't need to send us a plan yet, and we have approved 49 

of the 89. We are currently in the process of dealing with the other 

40. 

We are gaining experience every day on the use of things like 

pricing mechanisms as a means to promote more efficient use of 

water. The Friant representatives will have an opportunity to testify on that when they come up in the next paneL I think it is the 

next panel. 

Mr. DOOLI'l'TLE. Well, I guess I would just ask since the CVPIA 

doesn't require nor I believe authorize that, why are you doing that? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, the CVPIA is going to require it in long-term 

contracts. 

Mr. DooLI'l'TLE. Well, I understand that, but that is in 1998, you testified. Why are you making them do it now? 

Mr. BEARD. Because price is certainly a very strong inducement 

to promote conservation and improve water management. And if 

these are conservation plans, they lay out our suggestion for ap- proaches on ways in which the districts can achieve conservation 

objectives. Now, pricing is one way to do that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I question why the Bureau is taking these measures that go beyond the requirements of the law. I will recognize 

Mr. Dooley for his questions. OK. Mr. Dooley passes. Mr. 

Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. One short question. I have got a question for 

you, Mr. Beard, regarding administrative changes and administrative fixes, and it centers around the 800,000 acre foot definition of 

what constitutes a credit toward that dedication to the environment. 

And I would like to refer back to a hearing we had in Sacramento on CVPIA recently. I believe it was in April, and, of 
54 

course, Mr. Patterson was there, but we had discussion about what 

really did constitute a credit toward the 800,000 acre foot allocation. And it was almost like a game of who is on first, you know. 

You know, questions may have also included things like, "Does 

this constitute a credit toward the 800,000 acre foot?" ''Well, I don't 

know." "Is it light or dark outside?" "Is this Saturday or Tuesday?" 

or, "Did you have a bagel or toast for breakfast?" You know, it was 

almost like those kinds of requirements. You had to ask those types 

of questions in order to find out if it indeed was a credit to the 

800,000 acre feet. 

There is a lot of misinformation. There is a lot of disagreement 

as to what constitutes a credit on that 800,000 acre foot allocation. 

And if you believe in administrative fixes, could you propose to me 

how you could clarify that then? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think the simple answer to your question is 

you are right. When the statute was passed, it says that the use 

is for the purpose of primary wildlife habitat but also could be 

counted for other uses such as Bay-Delta water quality and endangered species. 

And we think that the process that we have proposed for this 

year, working with all the people in this room to try to put together 

something that is reasonable, is going to be an effective process. It 

is our best effort to try to make it work this year. We are going 

to learn from this year. It may be that there are changes we are 

going to have to make, and procedures that we are going to have 

to change, and calculations that we are going to have to change. 

Listen. I have been about as frustrated as everybody else in this 

room over the 800,000 acre feet because it is not an easy thing. In 

a general sense, it represents an expression that we need to commit water for certain purposes, and that is understandable. The 

question of how do you do it and how do you account for it becomes 

the more difficult one. 

Mr. R.ADANOVICH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pombo is recognized. 

Mr. POMBO. Just to follow up, Mr. Beard, it is my understanding 

that water districts are required to come up with the water conservation plan. What authority does the Bureau have to issue 

water conservation plans and to implement water conservation 

plans? 

Mr. BEARD. You mean to approve the plans? 

Mr. POMBO. To draw them up, to approve them. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, we don't draw them up. We have drawn up 

guidelines on what has to be in the plans. 

Mr. PoMBO. For the districts? In their water conservation plans, 

are they suggesting the tiered pricing as a water conservation 

measure? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Mr. POMBO. Or did that come from you? 

Mr. BEARD. No. It is in the criteria that we specified what ought 

to be in a plan. The Congress passed legislation in 1982 directing 

that every district that receives water from Reclamation put forward a water conservation plan. And then in the CVPIA it goes 

further, laying out more specific requirements for districts receiving CVP water. 
55 

And then the inevitable question from the contractors is, "OK, 

what are the rules of the game here? You have got to tell us what 

do we have to put in here?" because the usual argument is what 

constitutes an acceptable plan. 

Mr. POMBO. In the law does it say that you have to accept the 

plan, that the Bureau has to accept the plan? Or does it say that 

the district has to come up with a plan? Because it was my understanding that it-and I may be wrong on this-but it was my understanding that nowhere in the law does it say that the Bureau has 

to accept the plan. 

Mr. BEARD. Does it state in words that we must then, in turn, 

approve the plans? I don't see that here right now, but I would like 

an opportunity to answer for the record if I could. 

Mr. POMBO. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. 

Mr. POMBO. Because what you are saying and what is happening 

out there doesn't exactly fit with what I understood. I would like 

to go to Mr. Nelson. I had asked a question before about legislative 

fix versus an administrative fix, and he requested the opportunity 

to answer that, and I would like to give you that opportunity. 

Mr. NELSON. Well, actually, it was more to the 800,000 acre feet 

in the context of legislative versus administrative fix, and I don't 

think that there is a clearer example in why it is we have to have 

legislation. I would like to put the 800,000 acre feet into perspective. 

Despite popular belief, the 800,000 acre feet isn't allocated out of 

8 million acre feet of CVP yield. As a practical matter and as the 

dust settles on the implementation of CVPIA, there is about 2.2 to 

2.3 million acre feet of CVP contracts that are on the hook for not 

only the 800,000 acre feet, but Trinity River and the refuge supplies. 

To say that we need flexibility in determining the 800,000 acre 

feet, frankly, is a great example of why we need legislation. We 

don't need flexibility. We need definition because right now we 

don't have even general agreement on the concepts involved in the 

800,000 acre feet. On the notion of crediting, what can we credit, 

what it is intended for, what it isn't. 

And essentially we have at limbo out there a significant portion of a large group of water users' water supply, and the uncertainty 

is unacceptable. And, again, I think that that is a prime example 

of why it is we need legislative fix as opposed to administrative fix. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. And, Mr. Beard, for the record, I would 

like you to respond, that by what specific authority can the Bureau 

require increased prices for water conservation plans for people 

who have a contract based on their water rate? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. I would be happy to do so. 

Mr. POMBO. Because what you are doing and what you are saying is contrary to what I have read, and I am a little bit confused 

as to how you can do what you are doing or under what authority. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Yes. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nelson, the question that I put to Mr. Quinn on the terms and conditions of contract renewal, could you explain your position? 
56 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. We think that we would like to be on equal 

footing with the other 80 percent of the water users in the State 

of California who don't have to go through such contract renewals, 

that through their water permits under the State of California that 

that is essentially where their water rights are held. 

And I guess I am a little bit baffled at why it is we think we 

need to hold at bay not just 20 percent of CVP's water-I mean, 

excuse me, 20 percent of the state's water which is the CVP supply-why we have to hold that aside as opposed to the other 80 

percent of the users in the State of California. 

There are still mechanisms, Congressman, on being able to move 

this water around within our contracts to meet the future needs of 

California. We don't need to put a cloud of uncertainty over contract renewals. There are a lot of other uncertainties in California 

water. 

Mr. MILLER. Those other mechanisms being what? 

Mr. NELSON. The other mechanisms being water transfers, regulatory--

Mr. MILLER. Outside the district? 

Mr. NELSON. Pardon? 

Mr. MILLER. Outside the district? 

Mr. NELSON. Outside the district. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Would you give the districts a veto on that? 

Mr. NELSON. We would give the districts the power to review 

that, absolutely. There are certain third party impacts that we all 

agree--

Mr. MILLER. We understand the power to review that. What 

about the power to approve that or the power to veto that? 

Mr. NELSON. Yes. I think so. I think that that is the appropriate 

vehicle for review of transfers is the local community under specific 

guidelines. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand that. Would you give them the power 

to veto that? 

Mr. NELSON. Under--

Mr. MILLER. Who would make the decision whether the water 

transfer would go forward or not? 

Mr. NELSON. Under agreed-upon guidelines, I think it is reasonable that the local districts make that decision and do have veto 

power. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. And have veto power? 

Mr. NELSON. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Quinn, would that be consistent with your 

view? 

Mr. QmNN. Well, we don't like the V word. As I said in response 

to a question earlier, we think the district has an appropriate role 

in approving transfers as long--

Mr. MILLER. We would stipulate that. Should they have the veto 

power of whether or not water can go outside of the project and 

outside of the district? 

Mr. QUINN. We think if you put together a transfer that satisfies 

the criteria as specified, it ought to be difficult for the districts to 

say no. So, no, we are not comfortable with an outright veto. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Would the gentleman yield to me a minute? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 
57 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Quinn, if I understand, in your written statement, or maybe it was in your verbal statement, you said that you 

would support the district review subject, that you also had the criteria, plus you would have the option for an appeal. What might 

constitute a veto? 

Mr. QuiNN. We want criteria of appeal, and we want the requirement that the districts create programs if their landowners request 

them to. We think those three things will create a functional mechanism for transferring water. 

Mr. NELSON. I would like to point out that what we have done 

here once--

Mr. MILLER. That is not the arrangement that Mr. Nelson anticipates. 

Mr. QUINN. I guess we would like the opportunity to come to a 

common arrangement. 

Mr. NELSON. And we would be open to that. I would like to point 

out that we are, once again-this is another good example. We 

have taken 20 percent of California's water supply and essentially 

pointed out that we are going to deal with you differently than the 

other 80 percent. One of the things that we have tried to do on this 

legislation specifically with transfers is to make it more comparable 

to the rules that other folks in the state are using to do water 

transfers. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Nelson, with all due respect, that is the business of setting priorities. That is the business of setting priorities, and the reason we are dealing with 20 percent of the state's water 

supply is because that is the percentage that we have the authority 

to deal with under the Central Valley Project. 

And, in fact, what you have is you have 80 percent of it locked 

into agriculture, and the question is will it be locked into agriculture as 1906 calls for in perpetuity. Or will we be able to look 

at agriculture at some point down the future and decide whether 

or not that is still the highest priority we have for 80 percent of 

the water. We have base closures. We have companies going out of 

business. 

The economics changes all of the time, but it is highly unlikely that 32 million people are going to get up and leave this state over 

the next decade. And much of that water goes to the sustaining of 

human life and family income, as it does on the farm, but the question of how that water will be used. 

So when you suggest that the districts should have the veto, that 

suggests that when you get down to the terms and the conditions 

of the contract at the end of the period, you better have the right 

to have some discretion as to whether or not you are going to continue to allocate 100 percent of the water as previously used in the 

25 years, or do you get to reevaluate California's economy and its 

status and say, "Well, what we will do is we will give you 98 percent," or, "We will give you 70 percent." 

That is the nature of priorities. It may be at some point that 

there will be a great move in the state, and they will say, "We are 

going to give every family in California 80 percent of what they 

used last year." That is kind of what went on in the Contra Costa 

Water District and the Metropolitan Water District and the San 

Diego Water District. 
58 

A lot of people are using 80 percent of what they used to use, 

and they are paying a hell of a lot more for it because of the priorities of trying to keep water where it returns the best use throughout the state. The State Water Plan has dealt with that. The Metropolitan Water District, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, East Bay 

MUD-they have all dealt with that. 

And now the agriculture community is dealing with that. But 

what 1906 suggests is the hand is on 80 percent of CVP water in 

perpetuity, and that is simply inconsistent with the needs of every 

other sector of the California economy. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Pardon? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Point of order to the Chairman please. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. State your point. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If we are going to continue to go around and 

around on this, can we limit the time-bring it down from five to 

two minutes please? 

Mr. MILLER. No, we can't. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Well, the rules say if we go to another round of 

questions, which we are in-it is my intent to have this be the final 

round on this panel-the rules do say five mlnutes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would note the red light. 

Mr. NELSON. Can I respond to the last statement briefly? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me begin my time, and you can respond on 

my time. Go ahead. 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you very much. I don't think by ongoing renewals of these contracts, Congressman, prohibit the movement of 

this water for future use in California any more than we anticipate there to be no movement of the other 80 percent of California's 

water. It essentially puts them on even grounds with the other 80 

percent of California, and just the opposite. It allows for equal 

movement and equal opportunity for the movement of that water. 

So I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree is by renewing these contracts doesn't prohibit the movement of that water. It 

puts them on equal grounds with the other 80 percent of the users 

in the State of California for the appropriate future use of that 

water. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to get back to the transfers of the 

water. The present law gives districts a veto over transfers involving more than 20 percent, does it not? All we are doing in this bill 

is indicating that the districts have the authority to give the approval over any amount. If they do not give it, they have to provide, subject to a list of criteria in the bill, reasons why the transfer would have an adverse impact which then can be challenged in 

Court. 

So we are attempting to facilitate the transfer of water with the 

bill, not to inhibit it. And it seems perfectly reasonable that we 

take that tack since the testimony indicates that these transfers, 

in fact, have been inhibited since CVPIA in having to go throughthere is a fairly long list of criteria set forth in the existing statute. 

And Mr. Nelson's testimony was that that had slowed down to 30 

or 60 days what used to be done I guess in a matter of hours. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, on that point? 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Yes. 
59 

Mr. MILLER. The discussion I was having is about out-of-project 

transfers outside the CVP to some other--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand that, and he is tallting--

Mr. MILLER. Permit no applications other than what is his name, 

Areias, as I understand it. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But he was talking about even sort of the routine things that need to go on, that used to go on and have now 

been slowed down substantially through the Bureau of Reclamation 

having to go through this list of-I don't know how many there are 

here-it looks like about 13-eriteria that have to be evaluated for 

each thing. 

The tiered pricing-Mr. Pombo was getting into this. I guess I 

would like to. I realize the power between the Bureau and the district doesn't take effect until '98, but it seems to me, you know, in 

a year like this, you want to encourage districts to buy water and 

recharge their groundwater. 

But now under the tiered pricing or in '98 under the tiered pricing that, in fact, will work just to accomplish the opposite result. 

Districts would have to pay incrementally more in order to do 

something that is environmentally responsible and so will be a disincentive toward improvement of the environment. And I think 

that is something that needs to be changed, and this bill does 

change it. 

I am going to go, Mr. Beard, in my time here before we go to a 

vote to the representation. Apparently, the Bureau is requiring districts to demonstrate the negative, that the particular water conservation techniques are not effective. Are you aware of that going 

on, that you are requiring districts to demonstrate-they have the 

burden of proof, if you will, that certain techniques, in fact, are not 

efficacious for conservation? Mr. Patterson is shaking his head 

there. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. Why don't you go ahead? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes. We are aware of that. We were given six 

months after this law passed to develop criteria; a very short time; 

done in a very public way; with tons of comments. The law says 

use best management practices. We worked closely with the State 

of California on what were best management practices that generally helped with water conservation and management; listed 

them in the criteria; told the districts to apply those, and if they 

didn't fit their situation, because we knew we would have that situation tell us why they don't. It was up to the District to show why they should not apply. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Well, Mr. Patterson, let me just ask you if you 

would share this with us. I mean, have you ever tried to prove the 

negative on anything? 

Mr. PATTERSON. There are districts that, in fact, have demonstrated why several of these don't apply. I think it can work better, but there have been many exceptions granted to the criteria 

because they didn't fit a certain situation. Can we do better? Yes. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to join Mr. Pombo's request, when 

you supply the justification for requiring approval of these conservation plans, show us where you have the authority to require 

districts to bear the burden of proof relative to demonstrating particular conservation practices that are not efficacious for them be-
60 

cause this adds a tremendous burden to the district. OK. That is 

the end of my questions. We still are in a vote. Anybody else? Let 

us see. Now, that would be a fourth round of questioning. At this 

point, I think we have got to draw this to a close. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, how long is this going to go on? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You have a right to ask questions. Do you want 

to ask any? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. No. I don't want to ask any. The only question 

I have is how many times are we going to go around on this? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We have got two more panels. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Under my authority as Chairman--

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman--

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. under the rules, every member of the 

committee is entitled to ask questions of every witness for five minutes. I have one more five minutes left to me, and I would like to 

follow up with Mr. Nelson. I am prepared to do that before we go 

to a vote. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Well, let me just clarify. Under the rules, as I 

understand it, it is discretionary of the Chairman as to the number 

of rounds of questioning we have got. 

Mr. MILLER. Under the House rules, it states that each committee shall apply the five-minute rule to the interrogation of witnesses at any hearing till such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness. And the parliamentarian-we just went through this on the 

Education and Labor Committee. I am entitled, and what I would 

like to do is finish it. This is a very important matter as we all 

know, and what I would like to do is I would like to follow up with 

Mr. Nelson. I am more than happy to do it when we come back 

from the vote. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Why don't you do it now, and then we 

will go to the next panel. 

Mr. MILLER. I want to go back to the contract because I really 

think it is the core of the issue here on renewal. The scenario that 

you lay out, Mr. Nelson, that you have both the veto on the transfers and a right to water quantity and renewal in perpetuity suggests that there is not much outlet for the reallocation of water 

should the people of the State of California decide that that should 

be done in the future. 

Mr. NELSON. I would like to reverse that and ask you a question 

back if I may. How is that different from the other 80 percent of 

the water users in the State of California--

Mr. MILLER. Because of this fact, you know, and that is this: just 

as we reallocated resources in the Federal Government, we closed 

down bases in California, and people make those changes. In this 

case, it may come that because of the increase in population and 

our different economic growth in the State of California, you are 

going to have to rethink about the reallocation of that water. 

The one place, like it or not, where some changes can be made 

in some cases with minimal hardship certainly than if you went 
61 

out to find 2.5 million acre feet of water in the urban sector, it is 

a much different situation as we have already done in conservation. 

So the question is you have an allocation that was based upon the 

California of the 1940's, and should that allocation remain in perpetuity? 

And if you lock off with the veto power transfers and you have 

contract renewal and perpetuity, then that water is simply not 

available for reallocation. That was the situation we found ourselves in before the passage of the CVPIA. That is why the urban 

districts and the financial communities and others supported this 

kind of change because they believed that transfers was one of the 

ways, and long-term but discretionary renewal after the first 25 

years was the other way to do that. 

So if I understand what you are saying, I mean, you basically 

block off that 80 percent of the water because the other people in 

the East Bay Municipal Utility District or in Contra Costa as we 

have people who come and ask for more permits and those districts 

decide, they then decide they are either going to charge us more 

because they are trying to stretch out the water. 

They make you use a smaller toilet, a smaller showerhead. They 

charge you more for irrigation water or for, you know, planting. 

The large homes in Contra Costa pay more than places in Berkeley 

and Oakland; where they have different climates and all of that. 

That is all going on to try to stretch that out of the urban area. 

I am just saying down the road I don't think California can be put 

in a straitjacket of allocations that were made in the 1940's. That 

is the dynamics of the economy, so to speak. 

Mr. NELSON. Actually, California is under the straitjacket of a 

water allocation scheme that goes back, you know, to the mid1800's when it developed its water rights and water allocation 

scheme in general. And I think at issue here is are we really locking up the current uses of this water by allowing for contracts to 

be renewed after 25 years? And my contention is that we are not 

locking up---

Mr. MILLER. But you are not allowing for modifications in quan- tity, are you? 

Mr. NELSON. We will take a look at the different stipulations regarding the renewal of those contracts, but having said that, there 

is no other water user in the state that has to look at modifying their water use renewals other than through certain criteria under 

state law. We are willing to come under that same criteria. We welcome the opportunity to come under that same criteria. We aren't 

locking up this water through contract renewals--

Mr. MILLER. You are. 

Mr. NELSON [continuing]. any more than 80 percent of the water 

anymore--

Mr. MILLER. You have a couple of minutes left here, but you haven't shown me yet how any water escapes your system. 

Mr. NELSON. It escapes the system in any other way it escapes 

any other system of the 80 percent of the other users. 

Mr. MILLER. OK. So we made a determination. The national Congress passed on this. It was supported by an overwhelming majority in the State of California. It wasn't a consensus, and now the 

decision was made this is a vehicle by which water will be reallo-
62 

cated. And you are saying, no, we want to go back to a veto and 

contracts in perpetuity. 

Mr. NELSON. We want to go back to state water law the same 

way that other water users-the other way that-the same way 

that other transfers--

Mr. MILLER. But you never had more than a contractual right. 

You never had more than a contractual right. 

Mr. NELSON. However, there must be merit. There must be merit 

for the renewals of other contracts of--

Mr. MILLER. If you want to turn it into a property right, that is 

different. But what you have is a contractual right. You went to 

law school. 

Mr. NELSON. No, fortunately I didn't. 

Mr. MILLER. You didn't? Well, that is why you don't understand. 

You have got property rights and contractual rights all mixed up. 

No, see, you have a contractual right for a period of time. 

Mr. NELSON. But, Congressman, this is an issue of--

Mr. MILLER. And, you know, just like you lease your house, the 

landlord comes along and says, ''Next time you want to lease the 

house, we are not going to let you have dogs," or, "We are going 

to raise the rent," or, "Those are the terms and conditions." If you 

have a mortgage, you don't go back at the end of your mortgage 

and say to the bank, "I want the same terms I wanted 30 years 

ago." There are new terms and conditions. Those are contracts. 

Now, some people up north in Mr. Doolittle's area, they have different water rights. OK? They have different water rights. These 

are contractual rights. The state gave a permit so that we could 

create some contractual rights. And the question is are those contracts open to modification so they can be reviewed without determining the outcome, so they can be reviewed periodically so the 

state can choose some priorities and some allocations. 

And the scenario that you are painting here is that cannot be 

done because you want those contracts in perpetuity, no discretion, 

and you want a veto over transfer rights. That means no water escapes the Central Valley users' portion of the water. 

Mr. NELSON. Essentially, in 1906 it does review the price and the 

quantity within those contracts. Essentially, what we are doing is 

providing certainty to those water users on an ongoing basis so 

they can do long-term financing and do some of the other things 

that water users need to do. 

Mr. MILLER. And their financing agents all suggested that this 

was allowable and doable and not a problem within the bill. Those 

were the people who were calling the--

Mr. POMBO. Would the gentleman yield to me? I know that your 

time is up, but would the gentleman yield to me on that? I think 

that you are correct in terms of contractual rights, but if your landlord came to you in the middle of the lease and told you he was 

going to give away half of your space to someone else who may give 

him more money, that would break the contract. And I think that 

part of what we are debating is whether or not contracts were honored through the process. And I know that you and I have had this 

discussion many times. 

Mr. MILLER. I am talking about after the 25-year period is run. 
63 

Mr. POMBO. But we are also talking about during the time of the 

contract that the contract was not fulfilled. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, they came to me in the middle of my contract 

and said I had to conserve water in my district. They said I was 

going to have to pay more for it. That is what every urban person 

in the United States went through. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Gentlemen, thanks to the Contract 

with America, we have got six minutes to go vote. We thank the 

witnesses, and the panel is excused. We will recess. 

[Recess.) 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will reconvene with panel two; invite our witnesses to come forward. We have on this panel Mr. Thomas J. 

Graff, Senior Attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund; Mr. 

Jeff Kerry, Vice President of Grassland Water District; and one 

soon to be up there we hope, Mr. Richard Moss, General Manager 

of the Friant Water Users Authority. And let us begin with Mr. 

Graff. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. GRAFF, SENIOR ATTORNEY, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Mr. GRAFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here 

today. Hopefully the length of the prior panel and the questions of 

the members mean that you are all done with questions when it 

comes to my testimony. I prepared lengthy testimony and squeezed 

it into your 12-page limit, and I will do my best to summarize it 

and just hit a few of the highlights. And then, of course, if you do 

have questions, I would be happy to try to address them. 

The basic position we take today is that we believe H.R. 1906 is 

legislation that should not have been introduced and that it should 

not be passed. Now, before I go into specifics on why I believe that 

to be the case, I do want to call the committee's attention to my 

effort in my prepared testimony to go through some of the history of my own involvement and of the Environmental Defense Fund's 

involvement in California water over the last 20 plus years. 

What I put all that in there for was to demonstrate that we have 

done, consistent with our basic mission, as much as we could to try 

to address the interests of other constituencies in the state, as we 

have advocated on behalf of our interests. We have seen merit 

sometimes in things that some others in the environmental community have not. 

In particular, we went out alone, I would say, early in the 1980's 

on behalf of water marketing and water transfers with a more 

business-oriented perspective than was probably applauded by others within our community at that time, or pretty much by anyone 

else, and that I believe is something that now is embedded in the 

CVPIA. And what we are talking about now hopefully are fine 

points, while most of the interest groups in the state at least pro- fess a commitment to water marketing. 

Jumping then to 1992 and skipping over the rest of that history, 

I would have to agree with the statement that the Chairman of the 

committee made earlier today that it is correct that the CVPIA was 

not a consensus piece of legislation. It was, however, the product 

of a very broad-based coalition consisting of representatives of a 

very large number of groups within California and outside, includ-
64 

ing most notably urban constituencies, big business constituencies, 

environmental constituencies, Native Americans, commercial and 

sport fishermen, duck hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and others. 

The one group that felt left out, as we have seen indicated here 

today, were the agricultural constituencies within the CVP. I would 

turn to my testimony, however, now and go over what I think are 

the three major benefits that the CVP agricultural interests got out 

of the CVPIA in 1992. 

One, at the time the CVPIA was being debated, the complaints 

heard loudest from the agricultural contractors of the CVP involved 

the lack of certainty in CVP contracts, especially those surrounding 

CVP contract renewal. In response, the CVPIA established firm 

rules for long-term contract renewals. Remember, there was litigation going on at the time on contract renewal, and what the CVPIA 

did was say, "OK For 25 more years, you are entitled to essentially 

what you have had, with changes only as prescribed in the law." 

The second loudest set of complaints from the CVP contractors 

involved their fears of an open-ended potential liability for meeting 

apparently insatiable environmental water demands. In response, 

the CVPIA established what the direct environmental water contributions of the CVP would be, including an 800,000 acre foot annual dedication of CVP yield to fishery restoration, a firm-up of 

state and Federal refuge water supplies, and a confirmation of minimum releases to the Trinity River. 

Otherwise, however, the Act left to a system of voluntary environmental water acquisitions and investments in environmentally 

oriented hardware the job of meeting the Act's environmental objectives. 

Third, the CVPIA also produced a potentially huge economic benefit to the farmers who make up the CVP's core constituency by establishing the right, not just of the water district contractors but 

of their farmer constituents, voluntarily to transfer water at a profit. It did that at the same time though that it also raised their 

water rates by $6 an acre foot in the case of agricultural water 

users and $12 in the case of urban water users, that increment to 

go to the Restoration Fund. 

Let me say in comment on earlier testimony today, this was an 

effort to increase the property rights in water in the state among 

those who would have the greatest incentive to conserve it if they 

also had the right to sell it. That is the farmers and growers and 

ranchers on the ground. 

What troubles me about what I heard from Dan Nelson and Tim 

Quinn too, for that matter, although he wasn't quite as aggressive 

on this, is that they want to go backwards. They want to say, no, 

ranchers are not responsible; shouldn't be allowed to own water 

rights in this sense; shouldn't have a property right in water even 

within the contract limitation; this power should reside in the district, not in the individual farmer. That, it seems to me, is inconsistent with the whole trend of American resource policy, conservative revolution in American political life in a whole number of 

areas, and ought to be resisted. 

As I noted, the CVPIA was the product of two years of intense 

legislative maneuvering and compromise. 
65 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Mr. Graff, I don't mean to cut you off, but you 

need to be wrapping up here. 

Mr. GRAFF. OK. Well, let me skip then right to the end. I think 

the key, and I suppose we will have more discussion of this later, 

is whether there is a possibility to make this into a consensus bill 

or not. And I think what a fair critique of the bill-an analysis of 

individual provisions is attached to our testimony-will demonstrate, is that the bill as it presently stands is all take and no 

give. 

I challenge the representatives of the CVPIA contractors to demonstrate where in the bill there is something better for the environment than what exists in existing law. With that comment and my 

time having expired, I will stop. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Graff may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Jeff Kerry is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF KERRY. VICE PRESIDENT. GRASSLAND 

WATER DISTRICT 

Mr. KERRY. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the 

Water and Power Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. I am Jeff Kerry. I am Vice President of 

the Grasslands Water District. I am also Senior Vice President of 

the California Waterfowl Association. 

I am testifying on behalf of the Grasslands Water District, California Waterfowl Association, the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, the Oregon Waterfowl and Wetlands Association, and the 

Alaska Waterfowl Association. Accompanying me today are Dave 

Widell of the Grassland Water District and Bill Gaines of the California Waterfowl Association. Together, we represent virtually all 

of the wetland, waterfowl, sports interests on the Pacific Flyway. 

The Grasslands ecological area is near Los Banos. This is California's largest remaining interior wetlands complex. I own approxi- mately 288 acres of the land in that area. We, the Grasslands owners, are unique because we don't farm crops. We farm for wetlands, 

we farm for water birds, and we farm for ducks. 

In order to provide viable wetlands, we need land, management, 

and, most importantly, water, timely delivered. If significant water 

is not available, the real users of these marshlands, the water birds 

and ducks, will, because of reduced carrying capacity, naturally die 

off or their ability to reproduce will be adversely impacted. Waterfowl populations from Alaska to Mexico and throughout the Pacific 

Flyway are affected. 

Between 1960 and 1985, most of our water that was applied to 

Grasslands was contaminated by agricultural drain water and 

which eventually led to the Kesterson disaster. Finally, in 1993, 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act provided wetlands and 

refuges in the San Joaquin Valley with a safe and adequate summer water supply for the first time in 20 years. 

The results were very dramatic. Over 26,000 acres were irrigated, an increase of 650 percent over the prior seven years' average irrigations. Waterfowl food production increased by 300 percent. Almost 50 million pounds of waterfowl food were grown in the 

Grasslands resource conservation area alone. These are privately 
66 

owned wetlands. This amounted to 15 percent of all the wetland 

waterfowl food requirements for waterfowl in the Central Valley. 

Bird use during the summertime irrigation and water use tripled. Currently, waterfowl populations on the Pacific Flyway are 

rebounding slightly. We believe very strongly that CVPIA refuge 

water supplies are one of the reasons for this increase. 

CVPIA water supplies changed the situation on the ground. With 

these waters, Grasslands is able to provide 3,000 acres of early migrant waterfowl habitat. This is from August to September. 55,000 

acres of these privately owned wetlands now has a firm, dependable water supply. We can manage our marshes at a shallower 

level over longer periods of time which maximizes our wetland 

habitats. Shorebird use in this one year when we had summer irrigation increased by 20,000. 

Although we don't know yet to what extent these improvements 

will increase the Pacific Flyway waterfowl populations, we know 

for certain that the existing waterfowl population that has access 

to better and more suitable habitat and increased food supplies will 

prosper. We know that the birds returning to the breeding grounds 

are in much better condition. Clearly, natural habitat with its high 

food values is superior to poor quality substitutes such as sewage 

treatment plants and agricultural evaporation ponds. 

240 species of birds utilize the Grasslands wetlands. Less than 

30 of these species is hunted. Typically, the hunting season last 

year ran 53 days. Typical hunt days in the Grasslands are three 

days a week, and, therefore, we use our property about six percent 

of the time for its purchased and maintained us~uck hunting. 

The other 94 percent of the time it is habitat home, resting and 

breeding habitat for waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway. These wetlands are privately maintained. Expenses are paid by the individual landowners without burdening taxpayers. We need 

water of adequate supply and good quality to be able to support Pacific Flyway waterfowl. The Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act has been a significant and substantial benefit to waterfowl and 

to sporting interests in the State of California. We do not want to 

see these refuge provisions weakened because we know they work. 

We have some serious concerns regarding H.R. 1906. We also 

want to point out that this bill contains improvements in the treatment of habitat and refuge. It has improvements over earlier 

drafts. In particular, the bill maintains guaranteed delivery of at 

least 75 percent of contracted water for refuges. However, we believe that further changes are necessary. 

It requires the Secretary to reduce water supplies to Central Valley refuges and habitat areas up to 25 percent whenever reductions 

are imposed in agricultural water service contractors. This reduction could be devastating for California wetlands. Under this provi- sion, it would occur when water conditions in the Central Valley 

are at their very worst. 

With only five percent of California's wetlands remaining, every 

acre in the Central Valley must be managed intensively to create 

the benefits of a larger and historic wetland base. In some drought 

years, a temporary reduction in water supplies could be devastating. Birds migrate from the north. They migrate whether they have 

water or not. If we don't have the water, the ducks will either die 
67 

off or return to their nesting areas in poor shape. There is no planning for alternative. Water birds need water. 

We are not insisting on a guarantee of more than 75 percent, 

but, rather, we are saying that the Secretary should be able to 

maintain his discretion to provide a reduction. Mr. Chairman, we 

would like to refer to our written testimony in regard to other 

changes to H.R. 1906. I can touch on them briefly. 

Mr. DOOLIITLE. Actually, I think your time is up, but we have 

your full statement, and it will be included in the record. 

Mr. KERRY. Fine. 

[Statement of Mr. Kerry may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITILE. I might note at this point we have as well the 

statement of Representative George Radanovich and, without objection, will be included in the record. 

[Statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

CALIFORNIA 

One of my goals as a Member of Congress is to provide security for the farmers 

of the Central Valley. I am convinced that H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act, will accomplish this objective by clarifying and making needed adjustments to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). It is important to 

note that H.R. 1906 will not repeal the CVPIA; it will simply reform this law. 

The CVPIA is badly in need of reform. Despite the claims of some of its supporters, the CVPIA was not developed by consensus. The interests of agriculture were not adequately taken into consideration when it was written. 

Some opponents of H.R. 1906 say that reform legislation is unnecessary since administrative changes can solve the problems associated with the CVPIA. I find such 

statements disingenuous. If administrative changes could accomplish the needed re- forms, why have they not yet been enacted more than three years after the passage 

of the CVPIA? It is clear that only legislation can frx this law. 

H.R. 1906 is limited in scope. It will retain key environmental provisions of the 

CVPIA while making common sense changes to see that these provisions are actually effective and workable. It is clear that key environmental provisions of H.R. 

1906 are not working. Under the CVPIA, water users have annually provided for 

environmental enhancement. Despite these great sacrifices, supporters of the CVPIA can point to few, if any, environmental improvements that can be attributed to this 

law. 

H.R. 1906 will continue to require farmers to contribute to the CVPIA Restoration 

Fund. However, this reform legislation will increase the flexibility of the CVPIA by permitting more of these funds to be used on physical flxes. This will benefit the 

environment by allowing the proceeds of the Restoration Fund to be used for more innovative environmental solutions. 

This reform legislation will make other needed changes to the CVPIA's environ· 

mental provisions. H.R. 1906 will clarify that the 800,000 acre feet of CVP water 

dedicated for environmental improvement will be credited with water taken for Endangered Species Act and Bay-Delta Accord purposes. H.R. 1906 will also broaden 

the CVPIA's program of doubling the anadromous fish population in the Central 

Valley by making it part of a statewide fish doubling project. 

My gravest concern with the CVPIA is its call for a fishery study on the San Joaquin River. H.R. 1906 would terminate this study. The salmon fishery on the upper 

San Joaquin River disappeared almost fifty years ago. Any attempts to reestablish 

this fishery would take inordinate amounts of water from farmers and would likely 

devastate the economy of the Central Valley. Even Secretary of Interior Babbitt has 

admitted that such a study would be a waste of Federal money. Under H.R. 1906, 

the San Joaquin fishery study will be replaced by the requirement that the Federal 

Government and the State of California cooperate with local governments to take 

steps to mitigate environmental changes in the San Joaquin River. 

I would like to emphasize that H.R. 1906 will not disrupt the Bay-Delta Accord. 

Agriculture played a key role, along with urban and environmental interests, in 

crafting of the Bay-Delta Accord. Farmers remain committed to seeing this historic 

agreement implemented. 
68 

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude for the willingness of Senator 

Diane Feinstein to approach the possibility of reforming the CVPIA with an open mind. While Senator Feinstein and I differ on many political issues, I know that 

she shares my concern about the importance of providing security for the farmers 

of Central Valley. Senator Feinstein has patiently listened to all sides in the CVPIA 

debate, and I know that her ultimate decision on this reform legislation will be 

based upon what she believes is best for the State of California. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And Mr. Moss. We introduced you, Mr. Moss, before you sat down, but we are glad to have you here, and you are 

recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MOSS, GENERAL MANAGER, 

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY 

Mr. Moss. Good afternoon, Mr. Chainnan and members of the 

committee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today. My name is Richard Moss, and I am the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority. The Friant Water Users 

Authority is a joint powers authority comprised of 25 member irrigation and water districts along the east side of the southern San 

Joaquin Valley. All of these districts receive at least part of their 

water supplies from the Friant Division of the Central Valley 

Project. 

The Friant Division supplies water to a large part of Fresno, 

Tulare, Kern, and Madera Counties. These counties respectively 

are the number 1, the number 2, the number 3, and the number 

7 producing counties in the Nation in tenns of agricultural product. 

The Friant Division is populated with small family farms in excess 

of 10,000. We grow principally high value crops of citrus, nuts, 

grapes, and stonefruit. 

This region is truly a unique region. It is unique in its combination of soils, water, climate, and talented people. Because of its 

unique attributes, this area must be preserved and protected. 

There has clearly been a Federal role in the development of the region, and there will continue to be a Federal role in assuring the 

long-tenn productivity of the region. 

Much of what I describe to you here today especially in tenns of 

the suggested changes to the San Joaquin River/rovisions of the 

CVPIA go toward this notion of preserving an protecting this 

unique region. 

Let me first address the San Joaquin River and Friant Division 

provisions. Section 6 of the Central Valley Project Refonn Act calls 

for a rewrite of the CVPIA, wherein the Federal study of the San 

Joaquin River, known as the San Joaquin River Comprehensive 

Plan, is replaced with direction to the Secretary to assist the State 

of California in the implementation of a number of specific provisions. 

Much of this section of the CVPRA deals with the implementation of the results of the state mandated review on the San Joaquin 

River recently completed. Many of the specific measures identified 

by the CVPRA are to enhance the viability of the existing salmon 

run on the San Joaquin River and were pulled from this recent 

state review. 

Clearly, the suggestion of the CVPRA to move to begin the implementation of the results of this already completed study will have 

far greater environmental value than to have the Federal Govern-
69 

ment independently, and, quite frankly, to date very inartfully, try 

to regenerate its own analysis of what needs to be done on the San 

Joaquin River. We need action there, not more study. 

The consensus that has been building behind abandoning any effort to try and reestablish the remnant salmon fishery that existed 

on the Upper San Joaquin River before the construction of Friant 

Dam in the 1940's has been overwhelming. Virtually everyone who has taken a serious look at the availability of the limited resources and the tremendous benefits of the current use of the waters of the San Joaquin River within the Friant 

Division has reconfirmed the original analysis by Congress. There 

is not enough water to have both a viable salmon run, salmon fishery below Friant Dam, and to provide the water necessary to take 

advantage of the tremendous agricultural production which exists 

within the lands of the Friant Division. 

I have brought with me today and would ask to be included in 

the official record copies of articles documenting the public concern 

principally from last summer in regards to the hearings that were 

held on the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan. 

It is a number of newspaper articles and editorials from the San 

Joaquin Valley that document this concern and also the public remarks of Senator Feinstein and Interior Secretary Babbitt in regard to the reestablishment of a salmon fishery below Friant Dam. 

I have also included some articles relative to the renewal of contracts. 

The CVPRA will reconfirm that it is in the national interests to 

ensure that water will continue to flow to the Friant Division service area by prohibiting releases from Friant Dam directly into the 

San Joaquin River. 

Let me clarify, however, that the Friant Division water users are 

not absolved by virtue of this language from fully participating in 

all other aspects of state or Federal law which would apply to any 

other water user in the State of California. In fact, you have fone 

to great lengths in addressing this concern in the language o the 

CVPRA. Friant water users have always been willing to do their 

fair share of environmental restoration and improvements, just not 

at the extraordinary expense of having to reestablish flows below 

Friant Dam. 

Another CVPIA issue near and dear to my heart is contract renewal. One of the most potentially devastating provisions of the 

CVPIA that would garner little, if any, environmental benefit was 

the provision regarding the renewal of existing long-term contracts. 

Not only did the CVPIA prescribe an interim renewal process 

which by virtue of its implementation to date has been unreasonable, but also injected the notion that the Secretary had some new 

level of discretion as to whether or not he or she would, in fact, 

renew these contracts. We have had quite a bit of discussion about 

that already, but I would be pleased to address that issue as well 

in any questions that you may have. 

In closing, let me sum up what I see as the true value of the 

CVPRA. Passage of the CVPRA will return CVP water users to a 

position of far greater certainty as to their water supply and to 

their obligations to restore and approve the Central Valley's environmental values. Greater certainty will allow these water users 
70 

the flexibility to be creative and productive in helping to address 

California's current and future water management problems. 

Successful passage of this legislation will clearly add to the environmental value of the CVPIA by making an unworkable law workable while solidifying the baseline from which future changes to 

water management in California can be expanded upon. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to appear here today. 

[Statement of Mr. Moss may be found at end of hearing.] 

[CVPIA news articles were placed in the hearing record files of 

the subcommittee.] 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Moss, I was quoting from some 

of your testimony in addressing my questions to Mr. Beard, but 

will you share with us your experience with the Bureau of Reclamation in terms of these water conservation plans and conditions 

and so forth that are being imposed upon you of tiered pricing, 

even though that is not--

Mr. Moss. Well, it is and it isn't. I was interested in the comments that were made earlier relative to the application of tiered 

pricing under the CVPIA provisions as part of the interim renewal 

contracts. 

We were given somewhat of a Hobbes choice in the interim renewal process of either agreeing to include within our water conservation plans provisions for having district to grower conservation requirements in our conservation plans, or reverting back to 

the 801010 kind of tiered pricing approach that was mandated for 

the long-term renewals. 

It was an either/or situation with relatively little flexibility in 

terms of how the districts or whether it was appropriate for the 

districts to have tiered pricing in their contracts at all. 

The development of the water conservation criteria was a very 

frustrating process. We thought we were going to have significant 

input into the development of that criteria since basically it was 

the districts who were going to have to implement all of it. We 

didn't. It ended up they listened but they didn't hear, and we ended 

up coming out with criteria that we found to be very objectionable. 

And I think you are seeing the same criteria now applied 

westwide and are hearing howls from other states as to its appropriateness. Again, the one-size-fits-all notion of water conservation 

criteria just doesn't work. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And what has your experience been with having 

to demonstrate that certain practices are not efficacious for conservation? 

Mr. Moss. The districts are going through that process right now 

in the approval of their plans, and it has been something that has, 

quite frankly, hung up the approval of those plans considerably. 

Again, the idea that you have to prove the negative has been very 

difficult and, quite frankly, has set what I believe to be the wrong 

tone for cooperatively working on reproving water conservation. 

Again, you have to consider that most of this area is already 

water short; doing an excellent job of managing their water; has 

had water conservation as a high priority for many, many years. 

Drip irrigation originated out of the Friant Division of the CVP. 

You will still find many of the original developers of that technology home right there in towns like Lindsay and Delano and Ba-
71 

kersfield. Water conservation is not something new to our area, 

and then to have some onerous provisions in the criteria foisted 

upon us was very distasteful. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What has been your experience with water 

transfers? Mr. Nelson testified these have been inhibited since the 

CVPIA took effect. Have you found that to be the case? 

Mr. Moss. Relative to transfers within Friant, they have occurred fairly easily and readily. What raised the original concern 

was in the development of the guidelines for water transfers that 

the Bureau was developing as part of the CVPIA. They came out 

in the determination of those guidelines that all transfers would 

have to be subject to the provisions in the CVPIA. 

Clearly, that wasn't what we believed Congress intended. We 

thought Congress wanted to be additive to the capabilities of transferring water. Well, the Bureau came down with the solicitor's 

opinion that said, no, the existing ability to transfer water expires 

with the expiration of the existing contracts. Thus, all transfers are 

going to have to be run through the CVPIA process. We think 

clearly that is not a workable situation on the long-term. 

The fact that that process hasn't caught up yet with our transfers at Friant I have trouble explaining. But the fact is that if that 

process which they believe mandated by law were to come into 

place, it would make transfers at Friant unworkable. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, Mr. Miller is not a witness, but he is one 

of the authors. Maybe he will comment upon that. I wouldn't want 

to speculate as to what his intent was, but it does seem as though 

that is a strange result-apparently though the result of the Bureau's own interpretation of it. 

Do you believe the 800,000 acre foot reservation for environmental purposes is a good thing under the CVPIA? 

Mr. Moss. Yes. We continue to support the 800,000 acre foot reservation as is currently being interpreted under the Bay-Delta Accord. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is certainty important to your customers in 

terms of their being able to run their businesses and meet their obligations? 

Mr. Moss. Very much so. Again, what we are talking about principally in the Friant Division is plantings of permanent plantings. 

You don't have an option from one year to the next as to whether 

or not you are going to have water for your trees, and they die in 

one year, and you are talking about replantings and regeneration 

of fruit that would probably take on the order of eight to ten years 

before you are back in full production. You just can't work with 

that kind of uncertainty. 

Additionally, there is a lot of infrastructure, if you will, needed 

to grow permanent plantings from the irrigation systems and the 

trellises all the way up to the packing houses and the like that are 

needed. You don't do that kind of construction, that kind of investment without having long-term certainty that you are going to 

have a water supply. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I would suggest we go vote-to recess and then come back and resume the questioning. 

[Recess.] 
72 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The hearing will reconvene. Mr. Miller is recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Getting swamped by testimony here but, Mr. Moss, 

in your discussion of contract renewal and tenns and conditions, do 

you include water quantity? 

Mr. Moss. In tenns of as part of the right to renew? Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes what? 

Mr. Moss. Yes, that the contractor should have a right to renew 

for the same quantity of water as long as they have shown and continue to show that they can beneficially use that water. Beneficial 

use should be as is provided for, and state law should be the measure of the right. 

Mr. MILLER. So quantity is not one of those that would be negotiable at the end of the tenn absent that showing? 

Mr. Moss. Not unless the contractor wanted to reduce their 

quantity or increase it, for that matter. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Graff, can you explain to me the implications 

of the renewal and the transfer provisions under 1906? 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, taking renewal first, my understanding is that 

existing law essentially grants mandatory renewal with minimal 

qualifications for a 25-year period, but thereafter renewals become 

discretionary. H.R. 1906, as I understand it, requires mandatory 

renewals indefinitely or basically inlerpetuity. As far as transfers are concerne , there are more changes, but 

the one that is most troubling is the one that eliminates the ability 

of growers, fanners, ranchers within a district to transfer up to 20 

percent of that district's water supply without an effective veto on 

the part of the water district board. 

Mr. MILLER. Now, under the one transfer that was applied for, 

the owner of that operation, that was unchallenged, right, and is 

currently challenged or has just sort of gone by the wayside? 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, it is hard to get a complete story about what 

has happened. I think what has happened is that MWD has gotten 

cold feet. I am not sure of this because, as I said, you can't get a 

complete answer, but I believe they are committed to the seller in 

that case, former Assemblyman Areias, to pay him the amount to 

which he is entitled. But whether they are going to proceed to completion of the actual transfer is unclear. 

I mean, as you heard Mr. Quinn, they seem to have been intimidated by the outcry that resulted from that effort and are now 

withdrawing to a position where they appear to have given up on 

the idea of user-initiated transfers. 

Mr. MILLER. I mean, that doesn't bode well for the notion of a 

district veto in tenns of facilitating transfers? 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, I guess they have got sort of a reverse psychology about it. I mean, I am just trying to read into what they are 

doing-what they think they are doing anyway-is they think, 

"Well, this got vetoed anyhow so we might as well acknowledge it 

in the law and give up." 

Mr. MILLER. Well, let me just say that-well, never mind. 

Mr. GRAFF. If I might, just to complete my thought, I do think 

that in the long run if you really want transfers to work as a water 

management tool, you can't get away from user-initiated transfers. 

The real conservation incentive and the profit incentive are going 
73 

to come from the individual user. The water district boards, and 

this includes water district boards on the buyer's side I think ultimately as well as the seller's side, are going to set up bureaucratic 

obstacles to making transfers really work as openly as would be 

ideal for purposes of making water use in the state efficient. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, if that is the case, then that raises even more 

concern about the notion of contracts in perpetuity without quantity being on the table. 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, my view on this is-the place where I think 

Dan Nelson goes wrong in saying we ought to be treated exactly 

like the other 80 percent is that the Federal 20 percent is indeed 

different, in that the taxpayers have put an immense investment 

into that part of the water supply. 

It is true, as he points out, that there are other water users in 

the state who are much better situated than the Federal users in 

that they have gotten water rights historically that are free, and 

they are free to do with them what they want, including transfer 

them. 

Mr. MILLER. But, you know, that is something that the political 

priorities in the state will have to sort out. 

Mr. GRAFF. Could change eventually, possibly. 

Mr. MILLER. Could change. You know, I guess that is the old 

transition from rural to urban. I wanted to ask you also on this 

linkage between a reduction in the agricultural service area and reduction in the wildlife refuge water. And I wanted to ask Mr. 

Kerry. Maybe you can answer now and then I can go to Mr. Kerry 

on the second round. 

And one of the things we learned in the drought was the drought 

started a lot earlier for fish and wildlife and habitat than it did for 

all the rest of us in terms of human consumption or farming or 

what have you in terms of the impacts that had to be dealt with. 

Mr. GRAFF. One of the concerns, and this also goes to the fishery 

issue, is that H.R. 1906, as I understand it, would require the reduction by 25 percent of both waterfowl refuges and wildlife refuges and the 800,000 acre feet of fishery dedication water, if any 

ag contractor is shorted. Given that essentially, at least by my 

judgment, the Bureau of Reclamation in most years is going to 

short at least some contractors, that effectively reduces both supplies by 25 percent-both environmental supplies. 

Mr. MILLER. One of the testimonies started out here talking 

about based upon good science, the linkage between what goes on 

in an agricultural use of the land and what goes on in a refuge. 

You know, making these mandatory reductions in law can't be 

based upon good science. The two uses simply aren't linked. I will 

wait and go to Mr. Kerry next. Unless you want to let Mr. Kerry 

answer, and then I will be done. I mean, whatever you want to do. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Let us do it. OK, Mr. Kerry. I will go for 

that deal. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I wanted to just on that point, you obviously 

have similar problems with this linkage where reductions would be 

automatic and mandatory if an agricultural service had some reduction because of the declarations of the Bureau as to a drier, critical year or shortage, what have you? 
74 

Mr. KERRY. Yes. When you have a drought year, what happens 

is that the usual places where water is is not available in the Pacific Flyway. You have these birds that are going to come from the 

north no matter if there is a drought or if there is a lot of water. 

So at that time, it is very, very critical to get as much water out 

as possible. What I am saying is that that reduction sometimes 

isn't acceptable, but we would consider allowing the Secretary to go 

ahead and make that decision, but we don't want it mandatory. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, you are saying a reduction on refuges ought 

to be determined by the condition and the needs of the refuge, and 

that shouldn't be linked to whether or not you have three cuttings 

of alfalfa or two cuttings of alfalfa allowed or you allow corn or you 

allow melons, that you have got to look at the refuge and the needs 

of the refuge and linking the two, you know, maybe puts some political resistance in reductions. But the fact of the matter is they 

are not for the same purpose? 

Mr. KERRY. That is right. Just say, for instance, the Secretary 

says, "OK. There is going to be a reduction of 15 percent," but 

there shouldn't be an automatic reduction of 25 percent. What we 

are saying is that if you have a lot of birds coming down the 

flyway, it is most important to get as much water out as you possibly can. 

Mr. MILLER. Secondly, on page eight, you talk about and I was 

wondering if you would just elaborate on-you say the bill eliminates a requirement of funding necessary to deliver these wetland 

water supplies be reimbursable and earmarking 67 percent of the 

fund for habitat restoration improvement and acquisition. 

Mr. KERRY. I am going to allow Bill Gaines, our Director of Governmental Affairs, to answer that. He is with the California Waterfowl Association. 

Mr. GAINES. Yes. I am Bill Gaines, the Director of Government 

Affairs for the California Waterfowl Association. Would you repeat 

the question please? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. In your testimony on page eight in the second 

to last paragraph, you state that H.R. 1906 makes funding of the 

restoration fund more tenuous in two ways. The bill eliminates the 

requirement for funding necessary to deliver these wetland water 

supplies be reimbursable and the earmarking of 67 percent of the 

fund for habitat restoration improvement and acquisition. You see 

that as what? You raise that as a concern. I want to know why that 

is a concern. 

Mr. GAINES. Our main concern with the changing of the funding 

for the level two water supplies from reimbursable to 

nonreimbursable is that by taking those out of the Restoration 

Fund and putting them to where they have to be paid out of taxpayer dollars, our belief is that that is going to raise the risk associated with whether or not that money will be available in any 

given fiscal year. 

Even if the water may be available, the money may not be available for one reason or another, whether it be budget cuts or so 

forth. And we don't think that that is something that we want to 

face. We have got the risk of having a wet year versus a dry year 

year in and year out. We don't want to face the risk associated with 
75 

the financial side of things. We would like to see that level two 

funding stay as reimbursable. 

Mr. MILLER. Those historically were what? Those were 

nonreimbursable on Bernie Sisk's theory that there was nowhere 

to send the bill-nobody to send the bill to-the ducks and the fish 

and what have you? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. OK. Let us see. Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, do you 

agree with Secretary Babbitt's assessment in October of '94 that 

the amount of water required to restore and sustain the San Joaquin River fishery would clearly go beyond the reasonable, prudent, 

and feasible criteria of the law itself? 

Mr. Moss. Yes, I do. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you care to expand on it? Well, in conjunction with that-expand on that and this other statement, and 

that is if you can give us an idea of the terms of the impact on the 

agricultural communities that have resulted from an uncertainty in 

long-term water supplies that resulted from even the declaration of 

this study? 

Mr. Moss. Well, to answer your last question first, that was 

clearly demonstrated during the workshops that were held by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation in consideration of the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan where in a 

series of five workshops we had over 5,000 people, not just farmers 

but barbershop owners to truck dealers, to, you know, the person 

that, you know, flips the hamburgers come out and be represented. 

Some of them, you know, testified for the first time in their life on 

an issue. 

Clearly, the public in the Friant Division was able to clearly 

draw a nexus between the potential of losing water down the San 

Joaquin River and their jobs, and that potential exists along these 

lines. The San Joaquin River doesn't have enough water to support both the salmon fishery and continued agricultural production in 

the Friant Division. We have water supplies which have ranged 

from about 350,000 acre feet up to, you know, the full contract 

amounts of 2.2 million in the past. 

If we were to try to keep a fishery alive in a dry year where we 

only have like we had in '93 and '87, '88, and '89 less than 100 percent of our what we call class one supplies or less than 800,000 

acre feet. And you take 4 or 500,000 acre feet out of that for a fishery, you are talking about reducing your available supply in those 

years which would have to be considered a very short year even 

further-taking half of it. And the year that we only had 350,000 

acre feet, if you take, you know, that much for a fishery, then you 

are taking all of the water supply. 

And you have to recognize that on the San Joaquin River currently water is kept in the river below Friant Dam to a point called 

Gravelly Ford. Gravelly Ford is where the last riparian diverter on 

the river exists. And the reason it is called Gravelly Ford is for one 

reason, and that is because it sucks up a lot of water. 

In order to get water beyond that point, you have to put more 

water in. Our analysis is that it would take for every acre foot you 

want to get to Mendota Pool, for example, which is only 15 miles 
76 

downstream from Gravelly Ford, you would have to put in two. It 

is a 50 percent loss. 

To get water from Mendota Pool all the way down to the confluence of the Merced where you would have to have another-! 

think that is another 50 miles-45 miles-something like thatfrom the pool to the confluence of the Merced, you are talking 

about considerably more water-rewetting a channel that hasn't 

been run on a regular basis for 40 years. The losses would be considerable; again, something probably in excess of two to one. 

So anytime, you know, you figure out what you need for salmon 

just in terms of flow, you have got to double that in terms of what 

you have to take out of the Friant supply. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you. Also to comment I think 

on the mere consideration of the study created a lot of uncertainty 

and affected land values and also the ability of the farmers to get 

loans. Just due to the fact that it was being studied created conditions that were unreasonable, unprudent, and unfeasible in the 

San Joaquin Valley is the point I wanted to make. 

Mr. Moss. Yes. That is clearly the case. Not only the San Joaquin River study but the overall controversy surrounding the renewal of contracts. There clearly has been a situation where buyers 

have stopped. I have talked to brokers where they said they were 

in the middle of deals; the stuff came up; controversy surrounding 

whether they would have continued available water supply and 

what the terms and conditions of those contracts would be, and the 

deal stopped. It clearly has affected land values throughout the 

Central Valley. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Graff, I 

have got a question with regards to any possible input that you 

may have had during this CVPRA process. Were you indeed invited 

to participate in this, and did you feel as though you were shut out 

of the process of CVPRA? Or did you choose not to participate in 

the process, and, quite specifically, were you asked to participate? 

Mr. GRAFF. I think the fair answer to your latter question is yes, 

although the process was pretty well launched by the time Jason 

Peltier and Dan Nelson, in particular, came and paid a visit, I 

think, on me and a few other environmental representatives. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK Thank you. I think my final question 

would be do you think that there has been an improvement or 

maybe a raising of consciousness of those people that use resources 

for farming and such over the last 20 years? Has there been an increased awareness on say perhaps of Dick Moss's part over 20 

years? 

Mr. GRAFF. It has come with some---

Mr. RADANOVICH. Hard work? 

Mr. GRAFF [continuing]. hard work, yes. I would answer yes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Dooley is recognized. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. Mr. Graff, on the Bay-Delta Accord, was 

EDF in agreement with that and supportive of that? 

Mr. GRAFF. Yes. 

Mr. DoOLEY. And were you also supportive then of the provisions 

that relate to the disposition of the 800,000 acre feet? 
77 

Mr. GRAFF. We supported the whole accord including that provision. 

Mr. DoOLEY. Then what would you specify as the difference between what H.R. 1906 has in it in terms of 800,000 acre feet and 

the Bay-Delta Accord? What is the fundamental difference there 

that would cause you to oppose it in H.R. 1906, but not oppose it 

in the Bay-Delta Accord? 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, there are other things that impact the 800,000 

acre feet besides just the one provision that you are referring to. 

But the principal difference is that the Bay-Delta Accord has a 

three-year life, and H.R. 1906 is indefinite. 

Mr. DOOLEY. So if the Bay-Delta Accord was for longer than a 

three-year period, you wouldn't have supported that agreement? 

Mr. GRAFF. Well, it depends on what the rest of the accord was. 

That was one of the provisions we gave up effectively in the course 

of negotiating our part of the accord. We said, "OK. We will agree 

for the three-year life of this agreement that the dedicated water 

from CVPIA can be used to meet Bay-Delta standards initially 

rather than what the law really requires, which is that it go for the 

primary purpose of doubling." But to make that kind of a concession extend beyond the three-year life cf the accord, it depends on 

what else is involved. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Kerry, there has been some references that 

H.R. 1906 removes some of the minimum water that was going to 

be provided to refuges that was a part of the CVPIA. Do you think 

that is a correct statement? 

Mr. KERRY. Yes, it could be because it makes it mandatory that 

there is a reduction if agricultural--

Mr. DOOLEY. In the CVPIA though, what was the minimum 

amount of water that it ensured that you would get? 

Mr. KERRY. I will turn that over to our Director of Government 

Affairs for CW A, Bill Gaines. 

Mr. GAINES. In the CVPIA, of course, there is a 25 percent cap 

on temporary reductions to the refuges of level two water supply. That is correct. ' 

Mr. DOOLEY. So in no way does H.R. 1906 reduce the minimum 

amount of water that was provided in the CVPIA? 

Mr. GAINES. You are correct, that it does not reduce it. That is 

right. 

Mr. DOOLEY. OK. Well, the issue is this. 

Mr. GAINES. It doesn't reduce the floor. 

Mr. DOOLEY. The issue is that in the CVPIA, if there was a minimum amount of water, it gave the Secretary the discretion in those 

years of shortages that he could reduce it 25 percent. The only absolute guarantee was the same guarantee of the minimum amount 

of water that is included in H.R. 1906. So the fundamental difference here is whether the Secretary would be mandated to impose a 25 percent reduction when he is reducing water to some 

other contractor within that same division. 

Mr. GAINES. Right. 

Mr. DOOLEY. I guess, then, that is an issue where there can be 

some disagreement. And, in fact, the characterization in the letter 

that Mr. Miller sent to the President which basically stated that 
78 

there was no guarantee on the minimum amounts of water to refuges-that we were in fact eliminating that-that is incorrect. 

Mr. Moss, we are struggling in terms of the transfers and the impact on that, and the relationship to the right of a renewal of a contract. 

Mr. Quinn testifying, on behalf of some of the urban users, r~ferenced the point that if he was going to be interested in transferring water even outside the project, if the contractor doesn't have 

an absolute right to a quantity or water even beyond the expiration 

of that contract, it certainly would reduce his interest in engaging 

in a long-term contract for transfer. 

Mr. Moss. I would assume so, and I think he agreed to that as 

well. And as somebody who engages regularly in buying water on 

behalf of our districts, that certainly would be the case. Nobody 

wants to do a deal if it is going to get jerked out from under them 

in a couple of years. 

Mr. DooLEY. Now, obviously in the Friant, and your situation 

might be different than in some others, but when you look at 20 

years, where do you think the most water is going to be transferred? Do you think the greatest volume of water is going to be 

transferred from ag to urban, or would you guess it would be from 

ag to ag? 

Mr. Moss. Over the next 20-year period, I would say it is clearly 

going to be ag to ag. I mean, we have basically now still permanent 

water shortages on the west side of the Valley in particular. They 

will be in the market each and every year for considerable quantities of water. 

Mr. DooLEY. And the concern that some people have in terms of 

the districts having the right of veto over that, could you perhaps explain why you think the districts should have that right of veto? 

And I would also be interested to know if you would at this point 

support some type of appeals process to some other body that could 

review the merits of that appeal? 

Mr. Moss. What is contained in H.R. 1906 I think was somewhat 

of a tradeoff, and it followed these lines. The 20 percent minimum 

that was required that districts didn't have the veto on was replaced with the idea that districts do have that veto power, but recognizes that that could only happen under a certain set of established criteria. 

We certainly would be open to the notion of having somebody review that for appropriateness, and we would certainly believe that 

if we were inappropriate in applying that criteria that the issue 

could be clearly taken to the Courts. Whether the Secretary is appropriate to do that review or not, I would be hesitant to say at 

this point in time. 

I think what Mr. Quinn was expressing relative to the Areias 

transfer was clearly the recognition that you just can't roll the local 

communities, that they are going to be involved in these decisions 

one way or the other, and that to try to do that just doesn't make 

a whole lot of sense, and that is clearly their recognition. 

My understanding relative to that transfer, by the way, is that 

it is progressing, only this time they are in negotiations and discussions with the district as compared to with the individual. So my 

understanding is that transfer will probably go forward under the 
79 

right set of circumstances, clearly after Met has done some rebuilding, if you will, of good will with the community. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Farr is recognized. And I will just note 

then we should be concluded with this panel, and then Mr. Riggs, 

whose written statement was admitted, is going to testify, and we 

will have him go after Mr. Farr completes his questioning. 

Mr. FARR. We should bring in Mr. Roger Thomas of the Golden 

Gate Fishermen's Association. I wanted to follow up on something 

that Mr. Kerry said, and he was indicating the flyway and the fact 

that the water allocations was really dependent on something that 

was out of the control of-which was the essentially migratory bird 

population. 

It seems to me that it just shows how complex this whole issue 

is; how you supply enough environment for a migratory bird pattern that is dependent on conditions totally unrelated to the migratory birds. Isn't there more of a science that you need to have than 

just a percentage of water allocation? Do we have enough sophistication with knowing the migratory bird patterns to know when 

those flocks are going to be large or when they are going to be 

small? Just like dry years and wet years, are there big years and 

lean years? 

Mr. KERRY. Yes. For instance, this year looks like a banner year 

for waterfowl. There will be a lot of birds coming down. 

Mr. F ARR. When there is a lot of water there is a lot of birds? 

Mr. KERRY. No, not necessarily. 

Mr. FARR. Is it the opposite? When there is no water there is a 

lot of birds? 

Mr. KERRY. Oh, yes. You could have great conditions in Canada 

let us say, and most of our birds come from Canada. And you could 

have very poor conditions here, and you would have a lot of birds 

coming on no water. 

Mr. FARR. Do we know enough science-! don't know if you are 

the one to answer that-maybe Fish and Wildlife would know-but 

is there enough science where we could-1 am only saying this because all the weather data in the world is collected in Monterey at 

the Fleet Numerical Weather Station. 

It has got a Cray computer in there. It is incredible how they can 

now micromanage the weather data where they can really tell you 

down to, you know, and we ought to be using that data for, you 

know, civilian uses. And it seems to me that perhaps our collective 

science knowledge would allow us to also play a role here, and 

what all of this discussion is about is how do you have enough 

water to do what you want to do? 

Mr. KERRY. Well, migratory birds, especially ducks and geese, 

are the most monitored animal that there is, and so we know when 

there is a good year. Like, for instance, your seasons are going to 

be set probably sometime in August. They have predictions of populations already. But what I am saying is, yes, we will know when 

you are going to have banner years for wetlands. 

Mr. FARR. Well, aren't you suggesting in that that there is a 

more sophisticated way of determining what your water needs are 

than just an allocation formula? 

Mr. KERRY. Yes. 
80 

Mr. F ARR. And yet that is not built into the formula? It is not 

built into the Secretary's in the bill, is it? 

Mr. MILLER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FARR. Certainly. 

Mr. MILLER. The way the bill is written because it has nothing 

to do with what is going on in the farmland or what needs to happen or not happen. For the most part, people will need a restricted 

amount of water to support what we anticipate for the particular 

year at that time. 

Mr. FARR. Well, that is the point I am getting at, and I am--· 

Mr. MILLER. I would say share of the burden, but the language 

is not relevant--

Mr. FARR. Well, what I am suggesting for all of us is that per- haps there may be a more sophisticated formula than we have used 

to date rather than this sharp percentage of water allocations. 

Mr. GAINES. Right. That is exactly what one of our major points 

at this stage of the game is, that somehow we need to get the discretion back with the Secretary, that in a year when we havetypically, what happens, and I am not a weather guy, but from 

what I understand, when we typically have a dry year down here, 

for some reason it is wet up in the Canadian prairies and so forth 

where the bulk of these birds breed. 

And 60 percent of the Pacific Flyway, that is 20 to 25 percent of 

the continental waterfowl population, depends upon wintering 

habitat in the Central Valley. We had 4 million acres historically. 

Now we have got about 300,000 to 350,000 acres. It is critical that 

we manage those as best as we can to maximize their wetlands values and functions. 

When we have got large populations of birds coming down in a 

year when it has been a dry year down here in the Central Valley, it is critical that somehow somewhere in this CVPIA or the CVPRA 

legislation that the Secretary has the discretion to beef up water 

supplies up to 100 percent even in a dry year if, biologically, that 

is something that we need to do. There has to be some science in 

the equation. There is no question about it. 

Mr. F ARR. And how much does agriculture have to give up on 

that? 

Mr. GAINES. Level two supplies, as most of you I am sure know, 

are historical water deliveries. They are not firm water rights. 

They are historical water deliveries. Level one is firm water rights. 

So that water has always been with the refuges. There is no question about that. So the real question here is the difference between 

level one and level two water. 

Now, the Service, as a result of the environmental assessment 

that was required due to the Westlands lawsuit last year and some 

other instances, has gone back and taken a look at what was called 

out in the refuge water supply investigation as level one water. It 

turns out that that level one requirement or that the level one 

quantity I should say is a lot higher than it was actually depicted 

back in 1989 when the refuge water supply investigation was completed. 

At that stage in the game, the incremental water to get you from 

level one to level two, which would be the CVP water that would 

have to be reallocated from other uses, in a worst case I believe the 
81 

number was somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 acre-feet. 

The information that I have seen out of the Fish and Wildlife Service just within the last couple of months says that in a worst case 

we are talking about 136,000 acre feet. 

That is the entire Central Valley, and that is water that would 

have to be reallocated away from other users to make up that level 

one to level two requirement. But in actuality, that number is a lot 

smaller than that because, as I mentioned earlier, the level two 

water supplies, although they are not firm or at least prior to the 

CVPIA they were not firm, they were historical. 

So a lot of that water is coming to the refuges anyway so as a 

worst case, you have got 136,000, but the actual number in any 

given year, and, of course, it would depend on the weather conditions and the rainfall and so forth, but in any given year, it would 

likely be considerably less than that. 

Mr. FARR. Well, part of this issue is certainty. 

Mr. GAINES. That is right. 

Mr. F ARR. And it seems to me that we ought to be using more 

data for certainty earlier in the decisionmaking process so that everybody knows ahead of time what is expected. What I think what 

people don't like is, you know, expectations that are denied. 

Mr. GAlNES. Yes. You mentioned certainty, and certainty is a big 

issue for the farmers, and we understand that, and we can appreciate that. It is also an issue for we that farm for ducks, so to 

speak. Knowing how much water we are going to get going into a 

certain year allows the various refuge managers and the landowners to plan out exactly how they are going to farm their wetland vegetation if you call it that. And it can make a tremendous 

amount of difference. 

Some of the results that we have seen that have come out over 

the past two and a half years have tremendously increased the 

wetland food production on those lands because they had the certainty to plan out ahead of time just how they were going to irrigate the lands. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman's time has expired. 

Mr. F ARR. Half a minute? 

Mr. DooLITTLE. OK. How much of this can be adjusted administratively, and how much of it has to be done legislatively? 

Mr. GAINES. Well, we believe that all of it can be done administratively. 

Mr. F ARR. Thank you. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. We thank the members of this panel. 

As with the other panel, we will have some additional questions we 

will submit in writing and would ask you to respond expeditiously 

to those. And with that, we will call up panel number 3, and we 

will just ask you, Mr. Riggs, why don't you just lead off with panel 

number 3. And you can make an introduction if you would care to 

do so. We did incorporate your written testimony already so feel 

free to summarize or abridge or whatever you would like to do. We 

are glad you are here. 
82 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK RIGGS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here 

in this vast and intimidating hearing room. Mr. Chairman and 

members of the subcommittee, I am testifying before you today because of the extreme importance of this legislation to my 1st Congressional District in northwest California. I want to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 1906, the proposed 

Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995. 

I, perhaps better than most Members of Congress-given the fact 

that I represent a district that sprawls over 400 miles from the 

Sasoon Bay to the Oregon border-appreciate and understand the 

importance of water issues in the western United States and the 

strong emotions that water allocation issues evoke. I understand 

there were some strong emotions evoked here earlier today. That 

is probably a testament to just how controversial these issues are, 

certainly for Californians. 

As the California congressional delegation's majority member on 

the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I recently played a significant role in the fiscal year 1996 

budget deliberations. While our overall bill was $2 billion less than 

the Administration had requested, I am pleased to report to you 

today that we were able to provide significant support for operations of the Central Valley Project, as well as for a number of related programs that will benefit Central Valley water users. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other sponsors of 

this legislation for continuing the spirit of cooperation that existed 

during the budget process. I particularly appreciate your sensitivity 

to the interests of Il!Y_ congressional district and your efforts to address our concerns. While we obviously are not in the Central Valley, we are certainly affected by the Central Valley Project. 

I had, at the outset of the deliberations on this bill, a particular objection to a provision in an earlier draft that would have effectively vitiated an amendment I authored to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. That was approved in the 102nd 

Congress with strong bipartisan support. I might add that was during my previous service in the Congress, before my sabbatical. I did 

support that legislation and, in particular, the provision of the 

CVPIA that is critically important to my district. 

That provision calls for preparation of an environmental impact 

study to determine the effect of the Trinity diversion on native fisheries. This provision effectively codified a decision by former Interior Secretary Lujan, based on preliminary results of a long-term 

study of anadromous fishery restoration, to raise the minimum 

instream flow releases into the Trinity-Klamath River System from 

the CVP's Trinity River Division. 

It was my intention to take future decisions regarding flow regimens in that river system out of the political arena by providing 

that when the long-term study is completed, which is expected to 

be 1996, flows could be adjusted by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The earlier version of this legislation might have eliminated the 

Secretary's authority to implement a future flow regimen based on 

the long-term study. Furthermore, the bill could have led to a Fifth 

Amendment claim for damages to Indian reserved fishing rights. 
83 

In consideration of these concerns, the bill has introduced has 

been modified significantly, and for that I thank you. The most significant addition to present law would be a requirement that the 

Secretary's recommendation may only be implemented through a 

rulemaking process conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

While my personal view is that this extra precaution is superfluous because of the opportunity for public input already built into 

the process, I recognize its importance to those who want to guarantee that all sides are given a full hearing before the final flow 

recommendations are implemented. 

There are other provisions of H.R. 1906 which remain of concern, 

Mr. Chairman, and cause me to reserve judgment on the bill. Let 

me preface this portion of my remarks by submitting for the hearing record a news story that appeared in the July 3, 1995, Santa 

Rosa Press Democrat which is the major daily newspaper in my 

congressional district. 

This article headlined, "Big Year for Salmon Industry," tells of 

"huge catches by commercial and sport fishermen along California's 

North Coast. Most of these fish come from the Sacramento River 

and its Central Valley tributaries. The large catch is attributable 

to the conservation measures that have been put in place over the 

past three years." In fact, the gentleman that I am going to introduce in just a moment, Pliny McCovey, just told me that we could 

look forward to increasing runs in our critical fisheries on the 

North Coast over the next three years. 

However, this resource is fragile, and salmon stocks are just beginning to rebound. The article which I am submitting for the 

record today demonstrates why it is so important for Congress to 

move cautiously on any legislation that might impact fishing 

stocks. 

Among the provisions leading to my misgivings about the current 

legislation are changes affecting the 800,000 acre-feet of CVP waterflow dedicated under the CVPIA to fish, wildlife, and habitat 

restoration, the elimination of sustainable anadromous fish doubling as a major purpose of the CVPIA, and changes to implementation of the fish doubling provision. 

Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks, I am going to submit 

for the record a statement prepared by the Pacific Coast Federation 

of Fishermen's Associations which discusses these concerns in detail. I also ask that you give careful consideration to the testimony 

presented to you today on behalf of my constituents, the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe, as represented here today by Pliny McCovey, my good 

friend, the Vice Chairman of the Tribal Council. 

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that your committee will be able to 

address these matters in the course of the legislative process and 

maintain the balance that the CVPIA seeks to achieve. I know that 

you personally are committed to working with other interests, as 

you have worked with me, and to continue to improve your legislation. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The article mentioned and statement of the Pacific Coast Federation may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I should at this time introduce the 

other members of the panel, and then we will go to Mr. Thomas 
84 

for his testimony. Roger Thomas is President of the Golden Gate 

Fishermen's Association. And he will be followed by Pliny McCovey 

representing the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and then Stuart L. Somach 

representing the law firm of De Cuir & Somach, and I believe he 

represents the Northern California Water Users Association. So 

with that, Mr. Thomas, the time is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER THOMAS, PRESIDENT, GOLDEN GATE 

FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. THOMAS. Good afternoon, Chairman Doolittle and members. 

My name is Roger Thomas. I am President of the Golden Gate 

Fishermen's Association representing the commercial passenger 

fishing vessel owners in northern and central California. GGFA 

represents some 70 vessels carrying approximately 200,000 recreational anglers yearly to the bays and offshore fishing areas. 

In addition, our fleet is deeply involved with beneficial activities 

such as San Francisco Police Department Children's Fishing Programs, donated trips to the Leukemia Society of America, and trips 

to disabled and handicapped organizations and veterans. We are an 

affiliate member of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association. 

In addition, we are a charter member of the Central Valley Fishermen's Coalition which represents six of California's largest commercial and recreational fishing organizations, two farming organizations, one waterfowl organization, and two environmental organizations. 

The CVPIA was signed into law in 1992 and provided the first 

real reform in 50 years of this massive reclamation project. The 

CVPIA is aimed at refonning operations of the Central Valley Project which decimated salmon runs of the Central Valley and 

Trinity River. 

Some examples of the past destruction done by the CVP include: 

Sacramento winter-run stocks fell from a spawning population of 

120,000 fish in 1969 to only a few hundred today as a direct result 

of the CVP operations from delta pumping and blockage of fish at 

the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. This run of salmon are now listed 

as endangered under the ESA. 

The listing of the winter-run fishery has caused a large financial 

loss to commercial and recreational fishermen, many small businesses, and the economy of coastal communities. This resulted because of the severe season regulations and restrictions imposed because of the event of the ESA listing. 

The once plentiful San Joaquin spring-run salmon are now extinct as a direct result of the construction and operation of Friant 

Dam on the San Joaquin River. This spring-run of salmon at one 

time was the largest run of salmon in California. San Joaquin fallrun salmon are at extremely low levels and possible candidates for 

listing under ESA. 

Millions of baby salmon from all runs are lost each year at the 

CVP pumping plant in the delta. Trinity River salmon and 

steelhead have declined as much as 85 percent following construction and operation of the CVP's Trinity unit, diverting most of the 

flow of that north coast river from running west to the ocean to 

east through the mountains to the Sacramento River so that power 
85 

can be generated five times through water on its way to the Sacramento River. 

This has affected river sport and tribal fisheries and is responsible, in part, for the massive closures of ocean fisheries, both recreational and commercial, off northern California and southern Oregon to protect remnant Klamath-Trinity runs of salmon. 

Losses of Sacramento fall-run salmon, the mainstay of the commercial and recreational fishery, accounting for an estimated 75 

percent of California's and 50 percent of Oregon's salmon harvest 

have never been fully mitigated as a result of the construction and 

operation of Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River, Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and Folsom Dam on the American River and other 

delta diversions. 

GGF A is opposed to any changes at this time to the CVPIA for 

the following reasons: Number 1, we do not feel that the 1992 law 

has had an opportunity to be implemented to date and is, therefore, too early to be making any changes until an evaluation on the 

implementation has been completed. Number 2, if any changes are 

necessary to the CVPIA, this should be accomplished administratively through a consensus-based process of all stakeholders. 

Number 3, the December 15, 1994, Bay-Delta agreement requires 

implementation of the CVPIA. Number 4, fishermen were not invited to the negotiation table regarding changes as indicated in 

H.R. 1906, but we do now have a meeting set up for July 24, next 

Monday, with the Central Valley Water Project Association to discuss these issues. 

We, therefore, feel that H.R. 1906 should be delayed until we 

have had an opportunity to review the proposed changes and reach 

consensus agreement, if possible. Thank you for the opportunity to 

provide this testimony. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. Thank you. And our next witness will be Mr. 

McCovey. 

STATEMENT OF PLINY MCCOVEY, SR., VICE CHAIRMAN, 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. McCoVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. It is an honor to be here today. I am Pliny McCovey, 

and I am the Vice Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. I also sit 

on the Klamath Fisheries Management Council; also on the Salmon 

Subpanel of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. I also am 

on the Trinity Task Force. 

I am testifying on behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the 

Klamath Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission. The commission 

was formed on January 6, 1995, by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the 

Yurok and Karuk and the Klamath Tribes in southern Oregon to 

preserve the natural resources of the Klamath-Trinity Basin ecosystem for the spiritual and well being of nearly 10,000 enrolled 

tribal members. We ask that our written testimony be included in 

the record. 

We strongly oppose H.R. 1906 because of the adverse effects it 

would have on fish and wildlife populations throughout California. 

We particularly oppose 6(b)(6) of H.R. 1906 because that provision 

would use delay and duplicative, bureaucratic procedures to politi-
86 

cize and effectively repeal the Trinity provision of the Central Valley Improvement Act. 

In modern times, Congress has recognized Indian reserve fishing 

rights in the Trinity River. We, the tribes, own about 50 percent 

of the fishery in the Klamath Management Zone. When Congress 

authorized the Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project in 

1955, it required that an instream flow be maintained for the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife in the Trinity River. 

Nonetheless, the Trinity Division eliminated spawning habitat 

for 109 miles of the Trinity Basin resulting in the diversion to the 

Central Valley of up to 90 percent of the average annual discharge 

from the Trinity River at Lewiston Dam to the Central Valley 

Project. 

The once abundant salmon fishery in which the tribes in the 

basin owned reserved fishing rights and which was the mainstay 

of the Pacific Coast commercial fishing industry was nearly destroyed. The Trinity River is now incapable of supplying the ceremonial and subsistence needs to the tribes, let alone supporting 

tribal commercial fishing rights. 

In 1992, Congressman Frank Riggs reinforced the Secretarial decision with an act of Congress. After a difficult legislative battle, 

Congressman Riggs achieved bipartisan support for enactment of 

Section 3406(b)(23) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

better known as the Riggs Amendment. 

The Riggs Amendment both confirms Secretary Lujan's decision 

and established a legal framework for reaching a final decision on 

water requirements for the Trinity River fishery and developing of 

operating criteria and procedures for the Trinity Division. 

Agricultural interests in the Central Valley Project attacked the 

Riggs Amendment in Court. That attack collapsed almost as soon 

as it began. The Federal District Court in the Central Valley ruled 

that the Riggs Amendment had a solid foundation and administrative record developed by Secretary Lujan, and that the Department 

of Interior immediately began implementation of the Riggs Amendment without prior additional compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Westlands Water District v. U.S. 

Section 6(b)(6) of H.R. 1906 is the latest assault on the Riggs 

Amendment. H.R. 1906 will force the return to the political arena 

and Congress of detailed scientific data regarding fishery conservation and hydrology that the Department of the Interior has spent 

15 years and tens of millions of dollars developing at Congress's direction. 

In summary, on behalf of the Hoopa Tribe and the Klamath 

Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission, we adamantly oppose 

any congressional efforts to circumvent the intent of the Riggs 

Trinity River provision of the Central Valley Improvement Act. The 

future of the tribes, and to a large extent the north coast economies, rests upon successful restoration of the Trinity Basin. 

And tribes are in agreement with our upriver neighbors in Trinity County that the needless delays to the Interior Secretary's '96 

Trinity River stream flow decision is, in essence, continuance of a 

taking from our people. With that, I would like to again say that 

it is an honor to be here, and if you have any questions, I will be 

here. Thank you. 
87 

[Statement of Mr. McCovey may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DOOLITrLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Stuart Somach is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF STUART L. SOMACH, ESQUIRE, DE CUIR & 

SO MACH 

Mr. SOMACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am here representing various northern California 

water interests including the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, for 

which I am general counsel, water contractors on the TehamaColusa Canal, and through the Northern California Water Association, numerous Sacramento River Water Rights Settlement Contractors. 

The entities that I have listed have had direct exposure to and 

have been directly affected by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. They have, as a consequence, been greatly interested in 

proposals that would clarify the CVPIA and better ensure its reasonable and successful implementation. We believe that H.R. 1906 

constitutes one approach for dealing with problems associated with 

the CVPIA. 

I want to turn my attention for the purposes of this verbal testimony to provisions of H.R. 1906 which most affect interests in the 

Sacramento Valley. H.R. 1906 would modify three definitions in the 

CVPIA. Two of these modifications focus on what water is subject 

to the provisions of the CVPIA and Bureau of Reclamation control. 

When the CVPIA was drafted and debated, we were assured that 

only CVP water would be implicated. In particular, we were concerned that the rights of those with state-created water rights, 

which predate the water rights acquired by the CVP, would not be 

affected by the legislation. 

In its implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act, the Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that it will treat settlement contracts on the Sacramento River the same as CVP water 

service and repayment contracts. Sacramento River settlement contracts, however, are not water service or repayment contracts. 

These settlement contracts were entered into with the United 

States as a means to address and resolve the protests of those with 

water rights on the Sacramento River to the granting of water 

rights to the Bureau of Reclamation for the CVP. These contracts 

were in every sense of the word a settlement of protests made by 

those with prior water rights on the Sacramento River. 

At no time was there any intent, nor can the contracts themselves be construed as simply converting those prior water rights 

to reclamation contract rights. The base rights to water were never 

compromised as part of the settlement. 

Sections 3(b) and (c) of H.R. 1906 address this issue by providing 

appropriate clarifications that the terms "Central Valley Project 

water,'' "repayment contract,'' and "water service contract" do not 

include water right settlement contracts such as those on the Sacramento River, and that the only water that reclamation can exercise control over is water that it has acquired. 

Water rights acquired by others including Sacramento River settlement contractors are not for the United States to control. These 

provisions should not be viewed with concern by anybody. They merely confirm what was the intent, if not the letter, of the CVPIA. 
88 

Now, in the Sacramento Valley on the Tehama-Colusa Canal, 

there are CVP water contractors who have never been provided 

adequate water supplies. This unit of the CVP was authorized with 

Congress providing a priority in contracting for them. 

Before contracting was completed, however, then Interior Secretary Andrus declared a contracting moratorium associated with 

environmental concerns in the bay and delta. As a practical matter, 

this moratorium has never been lifted, with the enactment of the 

CVPIA serving as a further obstacle to the United States providing 

to these contractors what had been promised. 

The CVPIA also created additional practical problems which did 

not serve to advance any particular environmental purpose and, in 

fact, have sapped the Bureau's limited resources to the extent that 

we believe progress under the more critical provisions of the 

CVPIA have been prejudiced. 

For example, it established a destabilizing interim contracting 

procedure which provides that interim contracts must be entered 

into for terms of three years, then two years, until certain illusory 

events occur in the future. H.R. 1906 provides that only one interim contract need be negotiated with regular long-term contracting to proceed upon the completion of the programmatic environmental impact statement. 

Section 4 of H.R. 1906 also seeks to address the uncertainty created by CVPIA treatment of contract term. Section 4 provides for 

the mandatory renewal of contracts for successive periods of 25 

years, thus recreating the stability in water supplies that existed 

prior to the enactment of the CVPIA. 

Moreover, Section 4 does this without in any way affecting the 

environmental purposes of the CVPIA All contracts that would be 

executed under this section are to include provisions that will allow 

the environmental purposes of the CVPIA to be enforced and implemented. 

Proposed modifications to the CVPIA provisions on water transfers and water conservation are geared toward advancing these 

purposes. The provisions of H.R. 1906 that address these issues 

and repeal of the "one size fits all" tiered pricing were developed 

through experience and relate to how things really work as opposed 

to dealing with these issues on a purely theoretic basis. 

The CVPIA. clearly has some major defects. We believe two options exist. The first is to ignore these defects out of some ill-defined fear that to modify the CVPIA at all is to destroy its environmental effectiveness. The second option is to fix what is defective 

so that the CVPIA can serve the purposes for which it was written. 

We do not think that there should be any question about which 

course is the most appropriate way to proceed. We must fix the defective aspects of the CVPIA so that it can serve as an effective vehicle to carry out its intended purposes. Thank you. 

[Statement of Mr. Somach may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Thank you. I would like to say to Mr. Thomas, 

you are going to have that time. We won't go to markup before the 

August recess so we will welcome your meetings and get your input 

on this. I mean, I have heard various attributions as to the cause 

of the decline of the fisheries, whether it is offshore oil drilling, as 
89 

was claimed once, or whether it is logging practices, as has been 

claimed, or whether it is the CVP. 

We heard some very compelling testimony here last month by a 

professor of biology-! think he was from the University of Washington-indicating that it has to do with the temperature of the 

water. And there is an inverse relationship between the situation 

off the coast of Alaska and off our north coast. And when one is 

good, the other is bad. 

So, I don't know. But I do understand you have your point of 

view, to which you are certainly entitled. Nevertheless, we will look 

forward to trying to identify a common ground wherever possible. 

And to Mr. Riggs whose input in all of this I appreciate and who 

has had a significant impact on the way the provision of the Trinity 

River is worded, I would just say to you that what we are trying 

to accomplish is to address the chronic water shortage south of the 

delta. 

They are concerned about the present provision in the law where 

the Secretary can arbitrarily-well, hopefully it is not arbitrarily, 

but it would be possible for it to be arbitrary-ean determine some 

increased level of flow above the 340,000 acre feet, and that will 

dramatically impact what happens south of the delta. 

We at least would like to know the scientific conclusions, the 

data on which that decision is going to be based and have the opportunity to challenge that in Court should we feel that the rights 

are being violated there. That is the purpose of it. Having represented Trinity County once in our State Senate, I am well aware 

of the conditions they face there, and then they have good reason 

to complain over the years past what has happened to their fisheries and their river and so forth. I am sympathetic to that. 

But we are trying to provide some sort of a balance in this bill 

to address the competing equities. I really don't think we have 

done violence to the Trinity River in the bill. We are just asking 

for the data to be submitted, public hearing comment and notice, 

and the opportunity to go to Court if we feel it is improperly decided. As you know, it was written differently, and your intervention changed that. We will continue to work together as we move 

ahead. 

Mr. Somach, we have heard some people comment that we just 

ought to do this administratively, and, you know, to have a bill 

right now is a fly in the ointment. Do you believe that your concerns relative to the water rights of your clients will or likely will 

be protected administratively? 

Mr. SOMACH. I have absolutely no confidence that if we leave this 

to administrative fiat that the issues I have raised will be addressed satisfactorily. And, in fact, we have had extensive conversations with the Bureau of Reclamation and others at the Department of Interior, and we know at least at this point that they 

are going to be dealt with exactly opposite to the way that we believe they should be. 

And we have been arguing this point with them since the day 

after the enactment of this bill and have yet to get any kind of relief or any kind of satisfaction on what we thought was very clear 

when the Act was enacted. So we see no other way to proceed with 

respect to clarification than through legislation. 
90 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Just out of curiosity, when you have these discussions, who is it with? Is it with Mr. Patterson, with the Sacramento office, or is it Denver? Who do you talk to? 

Mr. SOMACH. I have had conversations on this specific issue myself with Mr. Patterson. I have had conversations with Mr. Patterson and Mr. Fazio together. We have articulated this point. I have 

had conversations with the Assistant Secretary at the time, Rieke. 

I have had conversations on this issue with Commissioner Beard; 

I have had this conversation everywhere, anywhere I can think of 

to raise the issue. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you pretty well feel that you have exhausted 

your administrative remedies as far as that goes? 

Mr. SoMACH. We do feel that way and because some of the issues 

that are implicated with respect to what we are talking about will 

trigger soon, certainly in 1997. Unless we get some legislative clarification on this issue, we will undoubtedly seek some litigated clarification on the point. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. Mr. Miller is recognized. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel, 

and, Mr. Thomas, I just want to thank you for your testimony. I 

think that during the debate over the CVPIA the commercial fishermen and the sport fishermen for the first time demonstrated to 

many people that other users of this water were small businesses 

and people and families who were reliant on the byproduct of the 

water, if you will, and that is the fisheries. 

And the ability to rehabilitate these fisheries is about the economics of a lot of families on the north coast and in the San Francisco Bay area that are dependent upon other users, whether they 

are sportsmen or whether it is the commercial taking of some of 

these fish. 

And I think that is an important part to keep in mind because 

very often the suggestion is that the rehabilitation of the delta or 

of the Trinity or of the Sacramento River or these other assets of 

our state that somehow that is just sort of an abstract, passive environmental issue when, in fact, it is a very dynamic operation that 

a lot of other people depend upon. And you can relay that all the 

way to the tourist industry and the health of San Francisco Bay 

that is utilized. 

I can remember as a kid when you could smell it before you could 

see it, and we have put a lot of money into rehabilitating that, and 

water obviously as we have learned more and more from the 

sciences is becoming the key important part of that rehabilitation. 

So I want to thank you and thank the other witnesses for their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Radanovich is recognized. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I just want to thank the panel members and 

state that I have no questions. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. Mr. Dooley. 

Mr. DoOLEY. Yes. I was kind of interested and we had some discussion earlier today, Mr. Thomas, this relates to the increased 

salmon catch off the Pacific Coast. I have an aunt and uncle that 

live in Morro Bay, and they are talking about the same thing. 

What do you attribute that to? I mean, as I understand, it takes 

how many years before you catch a salmon of that size? 
Mr. THOMAS. Well, it takes two years for a legal size sport fish 

to be caught which is 20 inches. That is with good conditions in the 

ocean. It takes three years for a legal commercial fish which is 26 

inches. In yesterday's Chronicle-that is probably what you are referring to, plus the article that Congressman Riggs has here-they 

talked about what great salmon fishing we have. 

And L.B. Boyneston from the California Department of Fish and 

Game stated that he felt one of the major reasons was the low 

delta exports in 1992 and 1993 allowed the hatchery fish to get 

past some of the perils, plus good ocean recruitment which is good 

ocean conditions which have been excellent the last couple of years. 

There have been an awful lot of feed. 

I also think that the ESA restrictions that have been placed for 

the winter-run have benefited the fall-run greatly; lifting of the 

gates at Red Bluff Diversion Dam through the Central Valley Fisheries Coalition which we are a charter member. We worked very 

close with GCID. GCID now has an interim screen that isn't killing 

any fish in the Sacramento River because of their cooperation in 

spending the money. So this total package, plus the fact that the 

ocean is in extremely healthy condition this year with good feed. 

Mr. DOOLEY. Now, the California Department of Fish and 

Game-the gentleman said that it was because of what? 

Mr. THoMAS. L.B. Boyneston in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday said that one of the factors could be that there was a low 

delta exports in 1992 and 1993, therefore, letting some of the 

hatchery fish get by. One thing that I didn't mention--

Mr. DooLEY. So I guess one of the points that some of us would 

make then is that even before the CVPIA was even implemented, 

there were measures that were ensuring that we were providing for 

some level of environmental enhancement at that time. 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, as we heard here earlier today, I don't think 

that there has been any great implementation of the CVPIA to this 

date yet that has helped the fish. It is all these other things that 

I just mentioned--

Mr. DOOLEY. Which were--

Mr. THOMAS [continuing]. that contributed together, plus the 

commercial salmon stamp program where our industry and the 

commercial people participate in a commercial stamp program 

where we self-tax ourself, and we produce some fish, and we get 

10 million fish a year past all the delta hazards and into the bay. 

And we have done this program for quite some time. 

My fleet has gone from 187 boats at a high down to around 70 

boats. The commercial fleet has gone from 8,000 permits down to 

about 2,200. And we are still self-taxing ourselves. So all these programs combined have contributed I think to the success that we 

have today. 

Mr. DOOLEY. That is great. And one other statement that you 

made, and your statement was that there were millions of baby 

salmon that were killed at the Federal pumps every year. Now, a 

baby salmon is different than a smolt, or are those one and the 

same? 

Mr. THoMAS. The smolts are baby salmon. 

Mr. DOOLEY. So where do you--
92 

Mr. THoMAS. There are salmon coming from many runs, and 

they not only get killed at the pumps, they get entrapped from reverse flows which the pumps cause and lose their way. 

Mr. DOOLEY. What is the reference you are using for that million? Because we obviously have been monitoring that somewhat, 

and some of that work that is being done by DWR and Fish and 

Game and others who have been involved in some tagging programs have been monitoring some of the take at the pumps. And 

I haven't heard any extrapolations that got to millions. I was just 

curious about that. 

Mr. THOMAS. I would be happy to try to provide you some written documentation, and I will be happy to do that. I plan to report 

to your committee following our meeting next week, and I will provide you with that. 

Mr. DoOLEY. I would really appreciate that. 

Mr. THoMAS. OK 

Mr. DooLITTLE. OK. Mr. Pombo is recognized. 

Mr. POMBO. No questions. 

Mr. DooLITTLE. All right. Well, I think we have come to the close 

of the hearing, and we appreciate all the witnesses and this panel 

as well. We will have some additional questions to submit, and we 

would ask you to respond expeditiously in writing. And with that, 

the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
93 

104TH CONGRESS H R 19'06 1ST SESSION e e 

To amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 1995 

Mr. DooLITTLE (for himself, Mr. &ADANOVICH, Mr. CoNDIT, Mr. THOMAS, 

Mr. HERGER, Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. PoMBO, and Mr. DooLEY) 

introduced the following bill; which" was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by t'M Senate and House of Representa2 tives of t'M United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECriON 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Central Valley Project 

5 Reform Act of 1995". 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 Section 3402(f) of the Central Valley Project Im8 provement Act (106 Stat. 4706) is amended to read as 

9 follows: 
94 

2 

1 "(f) to require that the Secretary operate the 

2 Central Valley Project in a manner to achieve a rea3 sonable balance among competing demands for use 

4 of Central Valley Project water, including the reS quirements of fish and '1-\'i.ldlife, agricultural, munici6 pal and industrial and power contractors.". 

7 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

8 (a) A'lADROMOUS FISH.-Section 3403(a) of the 

9 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4707) 

10 is amended to read as follows: 

11 "(a) the term 'anadromous fish' means those 

12 stocks of Salmon (including steelhead) that ascend 

13 the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their 

14 tributaries and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

15 to reproduce after maturing in San Francisco Bay 

16 or the Pacific Ocean;". 

17 (b) CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER.-Section 

18 3403(f) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

19 (106 Stat. 4707) is amended to read as follows: 

20 "(f) the term 'Central Valley Project water' 

21 means all water that is developed, diverted, stored, 

22 or delivered by the Secretary in accordance with the 

23 statutes authorizing the Central Valley Project and 

24 in accordance with the terms and conditions of water 

•BR UI08 m 
95 

3 

1 rights permits or licenses acquired by or issued to 

2 the United States pursuant to California law;". 

3 (c) REPAYMENT A1'1lD WATER SERVICE CON4 TRACTS.-Section 3403(k) of the Central Valley Project 

5 Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4707) is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 "(k) the terms 'repayment contract' and 'water 

8 service contract' have the same meaning as provided 

9 in sections 9(d) and 9(e) of the Reclamation Project 

10 Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187, 1195), as amended, but 

11 such terms do not include those contracts which ccn12 tain terms or agreements for water right settle13 ments, such as those on the Sacramento River, or 

14 water right exchanges, notwithstanding that such 

15 contracts may also include provisions which are the 

16 same or similar to those contained in repayment or 

17 water service contracts;". 

18 SEC. 4.. LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING AND CONTRACT RE19 FORM. 

20 (a) NEW CONTRACTS.-Section 3404(a) of the 

21 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4708) 

22 is amended to read as follows: 

23 "(a) NEW CONTRACTS.-Except as provided in sub24 section (b) of this section, the Secretary shall not enter 

25 into any new short-term, temporary, or long-term con-

•HR 1906 m 
96 

4 

1 tracts or agreements for water supply from the Central 

2 Valley Project for any purpose other than fish and wildlife 

3 before the Secretary has completed appropriate environ4 mental review, including the preparation of the environS mental impact statement required in section 3409 of this 

6 title, and has determined that there is sufficient water to 

7 meet the existing contractual and legal obligations of the 

8 Secretary relative to the Central Valley Project.". 

9 (b) RENEWAL OF EXISTING LONG-TERM CON10 TRACTS.-Section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Im11 provement Act (106 Stat. 4708) is amended12 (1) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol13 lows: 

14 "(c) RENEWAL OF EXISTING LONG-TERM CON15 TRACTS.-Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 

16 July 2, 1956 (70 Stat. 483), the Secretary shall, upon 

17 request, renew any existing long-term repayment or water 

18 service contracts which provide for the delivery of water 

19 from the Central Valley Project for a period of twenty20 five years and shall renew such contracts for successive 

21 periods of 25 years each. 

22 "(1) No such renewals shall be authorized until 

23 appropriate environmental review, including the 

24 preparation of the environmental impact statement 

25 required in section 3409 of this title, has been com-

•HR u1oe m 
97 

5 

1 pleted. Contracts which expire prior to the comple2 tion of the environmental impact statement required 

3 by section 3409 shall, upon request of the other con4 tracting party, be renewed for an interim period 

5 ending on the date on which the long-term renewal 

6 with respect to each such contract becomes effective. 

7 Such interim renewal contracts shall be modified to 

8 comply with existing law, including provisions of this 

9 title. Upon request of the other contracting party, 

10 the Secretary shall execute an amendment to extend 

11 the term of any interim renewal contract entered 

12 into under this paragraph before the enactment of 

13 the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995 in 

14 accordance with this title. Notwithstanding any 

15 other provision of law, all contracts renewed by the 

16 Secretary since January 1, 1988, but before the en17 actment of this title are hereby validated and rati18 fied in all respects as of their respective dates of 

19 execution, except that all water delivered pursuant to 

20 such renewed contracts shall be subject to payment 

21 of the charges mandated in sections 3406(c)(l)(D) 

22 and 3407(d) of this title. 

23 "(2) Upon renewal of any long-term repayment 

24 or water service contract providing for the delivery 

25 of water from the Central Valley Project, the Sec-

•BR 1806 m 
98 

6 

1 retary shall incorporate all requirements imposed by 

2 existing law, including provisions of this title, within 

3 such renewed contracts. The Secretary shall also ad4 minister all existing, new, and renewed contracts in 

5 conformance with the requirements and goals of this 

6 title."; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following 

8 new subsection: 

9 "(d) Contracts entered into or renewed pursuant to 

10 this section shall, upon request of the other contracting 

11 party, include a provision which requires the Secretary to 

12 charge such party only for water actually delivered by the 

13 Secretary.". 

14 SEC. S. WATER TRANSFERS, IMPROVED WATER MANAGE15 MENT AND CONSERVATION. 

16 (a) CONDITIONS FOR TRA."lSFER.-The matter pre17 ceding subparagraph (A) in section 3405(a)(l) of the 

18 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4710) 

19 is amended to read as follows: 

20 "(1) CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFERS.-All trans21 fers of Central Valley Project water authorized by 

22 the subsection shall be subject to review and ap23 proval by the Secretary and the contracting district 

24 or agency under the conditions specified in this sub25 section:". 
99 

7 

1 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.-Section 

2 3405(a)(l)(A) of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

3 Act (106 Stat. 4710) is amended by striking "to combina4 tion" and inserting "or combination". 

5 (c) APPROVAL OF TRA.l\lSFER REQUEST.-Subpara6 graphs (J), (K), (L), and (M) of section 3405(a)(l) of 

7 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

8 4711) are amended to read as follows: 

9 "(J) The contracting district or agency 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

shall either approve the transfer request subject 

to reasonable conditions or deny· the transfer request subject to making findings supporting a 

reasonable basis for the deniaL The conditions 

or findings shall only relate to the proposed 

transfer's impacts on any of the following: 

•HR 1906 m 

"(i) The quantity and quality of the 

water supply available to the contracting 

district or agency and its water users, including impacts to ground water quantity 

and quality. 

"(ii) The contracting district or agency's operations, including (but not limited 

to) the ability of the contracting district or 

agency to meet its delivery obligations, obtain additional water supplies, and under-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

8 

take conservation measures, exchanges, 

transfers, ground water storage, water 

banking arrangements, or conjunctive use 

programs. 

"(iii) The contracting district or agency's financial condition and the cost of providing water service. 

"(iv) The appropriate maintenance of 

fallowed land. 

"(v) Other relevant factors that may 

create an adve~ financial, operations or 

water supply impact on the contracting 

district or agency, its water users, or the 

local community. 

"(K) The Secretary shall not alter an approval or denial by the contracting district or 

agency under subparagraph (J) of this section 

unless the Secretary determines, consistent with 

paragraph 3405(a)(2) of this title, that such 

transfer would result in a significant reduction 

in the quantity or decrease in the quality of 

water supplies currently used for fish and wildlife purposes, except in the event that the Secretary determines pursuant to findings setting 

forth the basis for such determination that such 

•BR 1108 m 
101 

9 

1 adverse effects would be more than offset by 

2 the benefits of the proposed transfer. In the 

3 event of such a determination, the Secretary 

4 shall develop and implement alternative meas5 ures and mitigation activities as integral and 

6 concurrent elements of any such transfer to 

7 provide fish and wildlife benefits substantially 

8 equivalent to those lost as a consequence of 

9 such transfer. 

10 "(L) Transfers between Central Valley 

11 Project contractors within counties, watersheds, 

12 or other areas of origin, as those terms are uti13 lized under California law, shall be deemed to 

14 meet the conditions set forth in subparagraphs 

15 (A) and (I) of this paragraph.". 

16 (d) TRANSFERS AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.-Sec17 tion 3405(a)(3) of the Central Valley Project ImproveIS ment Act (106 Stat. 4712) is amended to read as follows: 

19 "(3) TRA."l"SFERS AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.-

20 Transfers executed after September 30, 1999, shall 

21 only be governed by the provisions of sections 

22 3405(a)(l)(A)-(C), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (K), and 

23 (L) of this title, and by State law.". 

24 (e) TRANSFERS, EXCHANGES, AND BANKING AR25 RA.~GEMENTS UNDER PRioR LAw.-Section 3405(a) of 
102 

10 

1 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

2 4709) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

3 "( 4) TRANSFDRS, EXCHANGES, AND B&'JKING 

4 ARRA.."'!GEMENTS UNDER PRIOR LAW.-Notwithstand5 ing any other provision of law, the authority to make 

6 transfers, exchanges, and banking arrangements of 

7 Central Valley Project water which could have been 

8 conducted prior to the enactment of this title is con9 tinued hereby, and such transfers, exchanges, and 

10 banking arrangements shall not be subject to, lim11 ited, or conditioned by this title.". 

12 (f) MEASUREMENT OF WATER USE REQUIRED.-

13 The heading of subsection (b) of section 3405 of the 

14 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4712) 

15 is amended by striking "METERIKG" and inserting 

16 "MEASUREMENT". 

17 (g) WATER CONSERVATION ST&"'!DARDS.-Section 

18 3405 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act ( 106 

19 Stat. 4709) is amended by striking out subsection (d), re20 designating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and 

21 (e), and amending subsections (d) and (e) (as so redesig22 nated) to read as follows: 

23 "(d) WATER CONSERVATION STMmARDS.-(1) The 

24 Secretary shall establish and administer an office of 

25 Central Valley Project water conservation best manage-

•HR 11106 m 
103 

11 

1 ment practices that shall, in consultation with the Sec2 retary of Agriculture, the California Department of Water 

3 Resources, California academic institutions, and Central 

4 Valley Project water users, develop criteria for evaluating 

5 the adequacy of all water conservation plans developed by 

6 project contractors, including those plans required by sec7 tion 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. In devel8 oping the criteria described in this paragraph for refuges, 

9 in addition to consulting with the Secretary of Agriculture, 

10 the California Department of Water Resources, California 

11 academic institutions, and Central Valley Project water 

12 users, the Secretary shall consult with the California De13 partment ofFish and Game. 

14 "(2) Criteria developed pursuant to this subsection 

15 shall apply only to Central Valley Project water and shall 

16 be established within six months follo\\-ing enactment of 

17 this title and shall be reviewed periodically thereafter, but 

18 no Jess than every five years, with the purpose of promot19 ing the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably 

20 achievable by project contractors using best available cost21 effective technology and best management practices. The 

22 criteria shall include, but not be limited to agricultural 

23 water suppliers' efficient water management practices de24 veloped pursuant to California State law or reasonable al25 ternatives. The conservation guidelines and criteria may 
104 

12 

1 include only those management practices and conservation 

2 measures which (A) are demonstrated by the Secretary to 

3 achieve significant water conservation and efficient man4 agement of water resources \vithout unreasonably burdenS ing project contractors or their water users, (B) are dem6 onstrated by the Secretary to be practices or measures 

7 that are cost-effective and economically feasible under ap8 plicable circumstances, and (C) take into consideration the 

9 amount of water under contract to the project contractor, 

10 probable Central Valley Project water supply, economic re11 sources, geography, and other factors relevant to that 

12 project contractor. 

13 "(3) The Secretary, through the office established 

14 under this subsection, shall review and evaluate \vithin 18 

15 months follo\ving enactment of this title all existing con16 servation plans submitted by project contractors to deter17 mine whether they meet the conservation and efficiency 

18 criteria established pursuant to this subsection. 

19 " ( 4) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a 

20 water conservation plan ·within 90 days after such plan 

21 is submitted under this subsection. A water conservation 

22 plan shall be deemed to be approved if the Secretary fails 

23 to approve or disapprove such plan within such 90-day pe24 riod. 

•BR 1906 m 
105 

13 

1 "(5) Water conserved by a project contractor or 

2 water user pursuant to a plan approved under this sub3 section shall accrue, in a manner consistent \Vith State 

4 law, to the benefit of such project contractor or water 

5 user. 

6 "(6) Compliance with conservation guidelines and cri7 teria developed pursuant to this subsection shall be 

8 deemed compliance "vith section 210 of the &clamation 

9 &form Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ij). 

10 "(e) INCREASED REVENUES.-All increa.<;ed revenues 

11 received by the Secretary which exceed the cost of service 

12 rate applicable to the delivery of water transferred from 

13 irrigation use to municipal and industrial use under suh14 section (a) shall be covered to the &storation Fund.". 

15 SEC. 6. FISH. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT RESTORATION. 

16 (a) SATISFACTION OF PuRPOSES.-Section 3406 of 

17 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

18 4714) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

19 subsection: 

20 "(i) SATISFACTION OF PURPOSES.-By pursuing the 

21 programs and activities authorized by this section, the 

22 Secretary shall be deemed to have met the mitigation, pro23 tection, restoration, and enhancement purposes of section 

24 2 of the Act of August 26, 1937 (ch. 832, 50 Stat. 850), 

25 as amended.". 

•BR 1908 m 
106 

14 

1 (b) FISH •"-''W WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACTIVI2 TIES.-(1) The matter preceding subparagraph (A) of sec3 tion 3406(b)(l) of the Central Valley Project Improve4 ment Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended to read as follows: 

5 "( 1) assist the State of California in pursuing 

6 its goal of doubling production of anadromous fish 

7 in Central Valley rivers and streams in accordance 

8 with the program specified in the report prepared by 

9 the California Department of Fish and Game enti1 0 tied 'Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Restora11 tion and Enhancement Plan', dated April 1990, 

12 through the actions specified in this subsection, with 

13 priority given to those actions specified in para14 graphs (4) through (22): Provided, That this goal 

15 shall not apply to the San Joaquin River between 

16 Friant Dam and the Mendota Pool, for which sepa17 rate provision has been made under section 3406(c) 

18 of this title: Provided further, That in the course of 

19 assisting the State of California, the Secretary shall 

20 make all reasonable efforts consistent with the re21 quirements of this section to address other identified 

22 adverse environmental impacts of the Central Valley 

23 Project not specifically enumerated in this section." . 

. •HR 1908 IH 
107 

15 

1 (2) Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 3406(b)(1) 

2 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

3 4714) are amended to read as follows: 

4 "(B) As needed to achieve the goals of this 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

program, the Secretary is authorized and directed to modify Central Valley Project operations to provide reasonable flows of suitable 

quality, quantity, and timing to protect all life 

stages of anadromous fish, except that such 

flows shall be provided from the quantity of 

water reserved for fish, wildlife, and habitat 

restoration purposes under paragraph (2) of 

this subsection; from the water supplies acquired pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection; and from other sources which do not 

conflict with fulfillment of the Secretary's remaining contractual obligations to provide 

Central Valley Project water for other authorized purposes. Reasonable instream flow needs 

for all Central Valley Project controlled streams 

and rivers shall be determined by the Secretary 

based on recommendations of the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service after consultation 

with the California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

•HR 1906 IH 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

108 

16 

"(C) The Secretary shall cooperate with 

the State of California to ensure that, to the 

greatest degree practicable, the specific quantities of Central Valley Project water reserved 

and managed for fish and wildlife purposes 

under this title are credited against any additional obligations of the Central Valley Project 

which may be imposed by the State of California following enactment of this title, including 

but not limited to increased flow and reduced 

export obligations which may be imposed by the 

California State Water Resources Control 

Board in implementing San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary standards 

pursuant to the review ordered by the California Court of Appeals in United States v. State 

Water Resources Control Board, 182 Cal. App. 

3d 82 (1986), and that, to the greatest degree 

practicable, the programs and plans required by 

this title are developed and implemented in a 

way that avoids inconsistent or duplicative obligations from being imposed upon Central Valley 

Project water and power contractors.". 

•HR 1908 m 
109 

17 

1 (3) Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project 

2 Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended to read 

3 as follows: 

4 "(2) upon enactment of this title, reserve and 

5 manage annually 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley 

6 Project water, excluding any Central Valley Project 

7 water delivered under the Contract for Exchange of 

8 Waters' described in subsection (c)(l)(C) of this sec9 tion for the purposes of (A} implementing the fish, 

10 wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes and meas11 ures authorized by this title; (B) assisting the State 

12 of California in its efforts to protect the waters of 

13 the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

14 Delta Estuary; and (C) helping to meet such obliga15 tions as may be legally imposed upon the Central 

16 Valley Project under State or Federal law following 

17 the date of enactment of this title, including (but 

18 not limited to) additional obligations under the En19 dangered Species Act of 1973: Provided, That all 

20 Central Valley Project water used to assist the State 

21 of California in its efforts to protect the water of the 

22 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

23 Estuary and to help meet such obligations as may 

24 be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project 

25 under State or Federal law following the date of en-
110 

18 

1 actment of this title, including (but not limited to) 

2 additional obligations under the Endangered Species 

3 Act of 1973, is credited to the amount of Central 

4 Valley Project water so reserved under this para5 graph: Provided further, That the Central Valley 

6 Project water reserved under this paragraph shall 

7 not be used to increase the flow of water through 

8 the San Prancisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

9 Delta Estuary beyond that required to meet the reI 0 quirements of the Bay/Delta Water Quality Control 

11 Plan, as may be amended or modified, or the En12 dangered Species Act of 1973. To the fullest extent 

13 possible and in accordance with section 3411 of this 

14 title, after using a quantity of such 800,000 acreIS feet of water for fish and ·wildlife purposes pursuant 

16 to this paragraph, the Secretary shall reuse or divert 

17 such quantity of water for agricultural or municipal 

18 and industrial purposes. 

19 "(A) Such quantity of water shall be in ad20 dition to the quantities needed to implement 

21 subsection (d)(l) of this title and in addition to 

22 all water allocated pursuant to paragraph (23) 

23 of this subsection for release to the Trinity 

24 River for the purposes of fishery restoration, 

25 propagation, and maintenance; and shall be 

•DR IIMMl m 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

111 

19 

supplemented by all water that comes under the 

Secretary's control pursuant to subsection 

(b)(3), sections 3408(h)-(i), and through other 

measures consistent with paragraph (l)(B) of 

this subsection. 

"(B) Such quantity of water shall be managed pursuant to reasonable conditions specified by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service after consultation with the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the California Department of 

Water Resources and in cooperation with the 

California Department of Fish and Game. 

"(C) The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries of the quantity of water reserved 

under this paragraph up to 25 percent of such 

total whenever reductions are imposed upon agricultural water service contractors; Provided, 

That such reductions shall not exceed in percentage terms the reductions imposed on agricultural water service contractors; Provided further, That nothing in this subsection or subsection (d) shall require the Secretary to operate the project in a way that jeopardizes human 

health or safety. 

•BR 11061B 
112 

20 

1 "(D) If the quantity of water reserved 

2 under this paragraph, or any portion thereof, is 

3 not needed for the purposes of this section, 

4 based on a finding by the Secretary, the Sec5 retary is authorized to make such water avail6 able for other project purposes.". 

7 ( 4) Section 3406(b )( 3) of the Central Valley Project 

8 Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4716) is amended to read 

9 as follows: 

10 "(3) develop and implement a program in co11 ordination and in conformance with the plan re12 quired under paragraph ( 1) of this subsection for 

13 the acquisition of a water supply to supplement the 

14 quantity of water reserved for fish and ~ildlife pur15 poses under paragraph (2) of this subsection and to 

16 fulfill the Secretary's obligations under subsection 

17 (d)(2). The program should identity how the Sec18 retary intends to utilize, in particular the following 

19 options: improvements in or modifications of the op20 erations of the project; water banking; conservation; 

21 transfers; conjunctive use; and temporary and per22 manent land fallowing, including purchase, lease, 

23 and option of water, water rights, and associated ag24 riculturalland.". 

•HR 1908 IH 
113 

21 

1 ( 5) Section 3406(b) of the Central Valley Project 1m2 provement Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended by striking 

3 paragraph (18) and by redesignating paragraphs (19) 

4 through (23) as paragraphs (18) through (22), respec5 tively. 

6 (6) Section 3406(b)(22) of the Central Valley Project 

7 Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4716), as amended by para8 graph ( 5) of this subsection, is amended to read as follows: 

9 "(22)(A) In order to meet Federal trust respon1 0 sibilities to protect the fishery resources of the 

11 Hoopa Valley Tribe, and to meet the fishery restora12 tion goals of the Act of October 24, 1984, Public 

13 Law 98-541, provide through the Trinity River Di14 vision, for water years 1992 through 1996, an 

15 instream release of water to the Trinity River of not 

16 less than three hundred and forty thousand acre-feet 

17 per year for the purposes of fishery restoration, 

18 propagation, and maintenance. 

19 "(B) By September 30, 1996, the Secretary, 

20 after consultation with the Hoopa Valley Tribe, shall 

21 complete the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study 

22 currently being conducted by the United States Fish 

23 and Wildlife Service under the mandate of the 

24 Secretarial Decision of January 14, 1981, in a 

25 manner which ensures the development of rec-

•HB t906 m 
114 

22 

1 ommendations, based on the best available scientific 

2 data, regarding permanent instream fishery flow re3 quirements and Trinity River Division operating cri4 teria and procedures for the restoration and mainte5 nance of the Trinity River fishery. 

6 "(C) Not later than December 31, 1996, the 

7 Secretary shall forward the recommendations of the 

8 Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study, referred to in 

9 subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, to the CommittO tee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Select 

11 Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the 

12 Committee on Resources of the House of Represent13 atives. If the Secretary and the Hoopa Valley Tribe 

14 concur in these recommendations, any increase to 

15 the minimum Trinity River instream fishery releases 

16 established under this paragraph and the operating 

17 criteria and procedures referred to in subparagraph 

18 (A) shall be implemented in accordance with sub19 paragraph (D). If the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the 

20 Secretary do not concur, the minimum Trinity River 

21 instream fishery releases established under subpara22 graph (A) shall remain in effect unless increased hy 

23 an Act of Congress, appropriate judicial decree, or 

24 agreement between the Secretary and the Hoopa 

•HR 1908 m 
115 

23 

1 Valley Tribe implemented m accordance with sub2 paragraph (D). 

3 "(D) The Secretary may only implement rec4 ommendations pursuant to the study referred to in 

5 subparagraph (B) relating to instream flows through 

6 a rulemaking process under chapter 5 of title 5, 

7 United States Code (relating to administrative pro8 cedure), with a comment period of not less than 60 

9 days and not more than 180 days. The studies and 

10 data on which such recommendations are based shall 

ll be available for public review. 

12 "(E) Any recommendation implemented pursu13 ant to subparagraph (D) shall provide for a variance 

14 in the instream flow to take into account differing 

15 hydrologic and reservoir storage conditions. 

16 "(F) Costs associated with implementation of 

17 this paragraph shall be reimbursable as operation 

18 and maintenance expenditures pursuant to existing 

19 law.". 

20 (7) Section 3406(c) of the Central Valley Project Im21 provement Act (106 Stat. 4721) is amended to read as 

22 follows: 

23 "(c) SAN JOAQUIN AND ST.AJ.'\TISLAUS RIV"ERS.-

24 (l)(A) In furtherance of the purposes of this title, the Sec25 retary shall cooperate with the State of California and 

•BR UMMI m 
116 

24 

1 local agencies and entities that impound and/or divert 

2 water tributary to the San Joaquin River in the develop3 ment and implementation of projects to--

4 "(i) coordinate the flows in the Stanislaus, 

5 Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin Rivers and ex6 ports at the Tracy and Banks pumping plants to fa7 cilitate increased survival of San Joaquin River chi8 nook salmon; 

9 "(ii) develop and implement a program in the 

10 San Joaquin River and its tributaries to identify, re11 store, and improve channel and riffle locations, to 

12 clean spawning gravel of fine sediments, and to re13 duce sediment input from near stream and water14 shed areas due to erosion and land management 

15 practices; 

16 "(iii)(I) establish a gene bank to ensure protec17 tion of San Joaquin River fall-run chinook salmon 

18 genetic material in the event of catastrophic loss, 

19 (II) selectively harvest hatchery fish to encourage in20 creases in wild stocks of San Joaquin River fall-run 

21 chinook salmon, (III) mark all hatchery San Joaquin 

22 River fall-run chinook salmon to allow their identi23 fication in ocean and inland fisheries, (IV) capture 

24 and breed wild San Joaquin River fall-run chinook 

25 salmon to enhance wild populations, and (V) estab-

•DR 11108 IB 
117 

25 

1 lish a genetic advisory committee to provide advice 

2 to the Secretary on the protection of San Joaquin 

3 River fall-run chinook salmon genetic material, 

4 which committee shall be composed of experts from 

5 academia, fishery management agencies, and water 

6 management agencies; 

7 "(iv) install a minimum of six telemetry devices 

8 on the San Joaquin River and tributary channels for 

9 the purposes of estimating the current overall water 

10 quality conditions in the San Joaquin Basin, which 

11 information shall be made available for water man12 agers to coordinate water management decisions; 

13 "(v) develop a plan to restore and manage the 

14 riparian corridor of the San Joaquin River and its 

15 tributaries, including areas on both sides of river 

16 channels where flood frequency is sufficient to sus17 tain riparian vegetation with the goals to restore 

18 areas where the corridor is g:<me and to develop ac19 tion items for riparian vegetation where the value of 

20 fish and wildlife is reduced by land use practices; · 

21 "(vi) initiate a program of screening water di22 versions in the San Joaquin River, its tributaries 

23 and estuary, which program will locate, inventory, 

24 prioritize and select candidate sites and include in25 stallation and long-term maintenance as necessary; 
118 

26 

1 "(vii) increase fall flows and install physical 

2 and/or .mechanical solutions as appropriate in the 

3 Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers to attract 

4 and provide access to adult San Joaquin River chi5 nook salmon and maintain suitable water tempera6 tures for spawning: Provided, That any increase in 

7 flows shall be implemented only through purchase of 

8 water from willing sellers, water· augmentation 

9 projects, and/or additional storage to increase export 

10 flexibility or other similar voluntary means: Provided 

11 further, That flow increases shall be integrated with 

12 physical and mechanical solutions which can lead to 

13 improved guidance flows and water quality in the 

14 lower San Joaquin River, such as a barrier at the 

15 head of Old River and/or an aeration device at 

16 Rough and Ready Island; 

17 " (viii) evaluate methods to protect San Joaquin 

18 River chinook salmon stocks in the ocean and estua19 rine fisheries, mark all hatchery-produced San Joa20 quin River chinook salmon, evaluate San Joaquin 

21 River chinook salmon 'shaker' mortality, and coordi22 nate additional salmon management practices which 

23 will contribute to increasing salmon reproduction 

24 and survivability; 

•DR u1oe m 
119 

27 

1 "(ix) undertake measures to reduce salmon 

2 predator populations in the San Joaquin River, its 

3 tributaries, and other areas such as Clifton Court 

4 Forebay, including (but not limited to) encouraging 

5 predator harvest, voluntary increases in flows during 

6 spring outmigration, reducing water temperatures in 

7 summer, increasing turbidity during outmigration, 

8 removing predator concentrating features, and modi9 fying channels to isolate predator habitat; and 

10 "(x) provide for the annual installation during 

11 October to December of a barrier to divert returning 

12 adult San Joaquin River chinook salmon from the 

13 San Joaquin River into the Merced River, including 

14 acquisition of a site at the confluence of the San 

15 Joaquin River and the Merced River for barrier in16 stallation and operation; 

17 "(xi) provide resources to the San Joaquin 

18 River Conservancy to assist in its overall efforts, in19 eluding, but not limited to, land acquisition, natural 

20 resource surveys, and environmental studies that 

21 may be necessary for successful implementation of 

22 the San Joaquin River Parkway; and 

23 "(xii) provide one-third matching funds for the 

24 annual operating budget for the hatchery at the 

25 Tuolumne River Salmon Restoration Center . 

• aa 1108 m 
120 

28 

1 "(B) Funding for the projects described in subpara2 graph (A) shall be provided under sections 3407(b) and 

3 3407(e). Funds provided pursuant to such sections may 

4 not be used for any action to address fish, wildlife and 

5 habitat concerns on the San Joaquin River downstream 

6 from Friant Dam, including (but not limited to) stream 

7 flow, channel, riparian habitat, and water quality improveS ments, until the Secretary determines that such action is 

9 reasonable, prudent and feasible. Any such action shall be 

10 subject to subparagraph (C). 

11 "(C) The Congress hereby confirms that it is and has 

12 been its intent to prohibit all releases of water directly 

13 from Friant Dam into the San Joaquin River other than 

14 for bona fide purposes of (i) flood control, (ii) satisfying 

15 the requirements of that certain Contract for Exchange 

16 of Waters dated July 27, 1939, between the United States 

17 of America, the San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irri18 gation Company, Incorporated, the Columbia Canal Com19 pany, the San Luis Canal Company and the Firebaugh 

20 Canal Company, as amended from time to time, or (iii) 

21 satisfying those contractual obligations of the Secretary 

22 which existed on the date of enactment of this title to pro23 vide water to landowners located between Friant Dam and 

24 Gravelly Ford. Therefore, notwithstanding any State or 

25 other Federal law, water shall not be released directly 
121 

29 

1 from Friant Dam into the San Joaquin River except for 

2 the purposes enumerated in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of 

3 the preceding sentence. 

4 "(D) In lieu of releasing water directly from Friant 

5 Dam into the San Joaquin River for any purposes of this 

6 title, entities receiving Central Valley Project water from 

7 the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project shall be 

8 assessed, in addition to all other applicable charges, a sur9 charge for all Class 1 and Class 2 water delivered in an 

10 amount that will result in collection, during each fiscal 

11 year, of $6,000,000. Such surcharge shall be in the 

12 amount of $4.00 per acre-foot and shall not apply to Class 

13 2 water delivered in excess of 50 percent of the amount 

14 of Class 2 water to which a contracting party is contrac15 tually entitled. 

16 "(E) Except as expressly provided in subparagraphs 

17 (C) and (D), nothing contained in those subparagraphs 

18 shall otherwise alter the applicability or inapplicability of 

19 State or other Federal law to entities receiving Central 

20 Valley Project water from the Friant Division of the 

21 Central Valley Project. 

22 "(2) The Secretary shall, by not later than September 

23 30, 1996, in the course of preparing the Stanislaus River 

24 Basin and Calaveras River Water Use Program Environ25 mental Impact Statement and in consultation with the 

•BR 11108 m 
122 

30 

1 State of California, affected counties, and other interests, 

2 evaluate and detennine existing and anticipated future 

3 basin needs in the Stanislaus River Basin. In the course 

4 of such evaluation, the Secretary shall investigate alterS native storage, release, and delivery regimes, including but 

6 not limited to conjunctive use operations, conservation 

7 strategies, exchange arrangements, and the use of base 

8 and channel maintenance flows, in order to best satisfy 

9 both basin and out-of-basin needs consistent, on a continu1 0 ing basis, with the limitations and priorities established 

11 in the Act of October 23, 1962 (76 Stat. 173). For the 

12 purposes of this subparagraph, 'basin needs' shall include 

13 water supply for agricultural, municipal and industrial 

14 uses, and maintenance and enhancement of water quality, 

15 and fish and wildlife resources within the Stanislaus River 

16 Basin as established by the Secretary's June 29, 1981 

17 Record of Decision; and 'out-of-basin' needs shall include 

18 all such needs outside of the Stanislaus River Basin, in19 eluding those of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 

20 Joaquin Delta Estuary and those of the San Joaquin 

21 River under paragraph ( 1) of this subsection.". 

22 (8) Section 3406(d) of the Central Valley Project Im23 provement Act (106 Stat. 4722) is amended to read as 

24 follows: 

•DB 1906 IB 
12.3 

31 

1 "(d) CENTRAL VALLEY REFUGES AND WILDLIFE 

2 HABITAT AREAS.-(1) In support of the objectives of the 

3 Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture and in furtherance 

4 of the purposes of this title, the Secretary shall provide, 

5 either directly or through contractual agreements wi.th 

6 other appropriate parties, firm water supplies of suitable 

7 quality to maintain and improve wetland habitat areas on 

8 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the 

9 Central Valley of California; on the Gray Lodge, Los 

10 Banos, Volta, North Grasslands, and Mendota state wild11 life management areas; and on the Grasslands Resources 

12 Conservation District in the Central Valley of California.. 

13 "(2) Upon enactment of this title and subject to para14 graph (8) of this subsection, the quantity and delivery 

15 schedules of water measured at the boundaries of each 

16 wetland habitat area described in this paragraph shall be 

17 in accordance with level 2 of the 'Dependable Water Sup18 ply Needs' table for those habitat areas as set forth in 

19 the Refuge Water Supply Report and two-thirds of the 

20 water supply needed for full habitat development for those 

21 habitat areas identified in the San Joaquin Basin Action 

22 Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Action Plan Report prepared 

23 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Such water shall be pro24 vided through long-tern1 contractual agreements with ap25 propriate parties and shall be supplemented by the incre-

•BR 11100 m 
124 

32 

1 ment of water provided for in paragraph {3) of this sub2 section: Provided, That the Secretary shall be obligated 

3 to provide such water whether or not such long-term con4 tractual agreements are in effect. In implementing this 

5 paragraph, the Secretary shall endeavor to diversify 

6 sources of supply in order to minimize possible adverse 

7 effects upon Central Valley Project contractors. 

8 "(3) Not later than ten years after enactment of this 

9 title and subject to paragraph (8) of this subsection, the 

10 quantity and delivery schedules of water measured at the 

11 boundaries of each wetland habitat area described in this 

12 paragraph shall be in accordance with level 4 of the 'De13 pendable Water Supply Needs' table for those habitat 

14 areas as set forth in the Refuge Water Supply Report and 

15 the full water supply needed for full habitat development 

16 for those habitat areas identified in the San Joaquin 

17 Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation Action Plan Re18 port prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. The quan19 titles of water required to supplement the quantities pro20 vided under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be ac21 quired by the Secretary in cooperation with the State of 

22 California and in consultation with the Central Valley 

23 Habitat Joint Venture and other interests in cumulating 

24 increments of not less than ten percent per annum 

25 through voluntary measures which include water conserva-

•HR 1908 m 
125 

33 

1 tion, conjunctive use, purchase, lease, donations, or similar 

2 activities, or a combination of such activities which do not 

3 require involuntary reallocations of project yield. 

4 "( 4) All costs associated 'vith implementation of 

5 paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be deemed a 

6 nonreimbursable Federal expenditure. Incremental costs 

7 associated with implementation of paragraph (3) of this 

8 subsection shall be fully allocated in accordance with the 

9 following formula: 75 percent shall be deemed a 

10 nonreimbursable Federal expenditure; and 25 percent 

11 shall be allocated to the State of California for recovery 

12 through direct reimbursements or through equivalent in13 kind contributions. 

14 "(5) The Secretary shall temporarily reduce deliveries 

15 of the quantity of water dedicated under paragraph (2) 

16 of this subsection up to 25 percent of such total whenever 

17 reductions are imposed upon agricultural water service 

18 contractors served from the same Division of the Central 

19 Valley Project: Provided, That such reductions shall not 

20 exceed in percentage terms the reductions imposed on ag21 ricultural water service contractors. For the purpose of 

22 shortage allocation, the priority or priorities applicable to 

23 the increment of water provided under paragraph (3) of 

24 this subsection shall be the priority or priorities which ap-

•HR 1906 m 
126 

34 

plied to the water in question prior to its transfer to the 

2 purpose of providing sud1 increment. 

3 "(6) In order to minimize possible adverse impacts 

4 upon Central Valley Pr~jed water contractors, the Sec5 retary is authorized and dire<·ted to construct or to acquire 

6 from non-Federal entities such water conveyance facilities, 

7 conveyance capacity, pumping capacity, and wells as are 

8 necessary to implement the requirements of this sub9 section within one year after PHaetment of this paragraph. 

10 To carry out this obligation, and without limiting other 

11 actions, the Secretary shall, in cooperation with the State 

12 of California all(! Central Valley Projeet water contractors, 

13 implement tlm;.;e immPdiate aetions necessary to facilitate 

14 the acqui;.;ition of pumping a.ll(! conveyance capacity from 

15 the State. Additional water that <~an be delivered as a re16 suit of the aequisition of such additional pumping and eon17 veyanee capacity ;.;hall be allocated in a manner which 

18 avoids water shortag-es to Central Valley Project water 

19 contraetors and use1·s. 

20 "(7) The Secretary, in consultation with the State of 

21 California, the Central Valley Habitat ,Joint Venture, and 

22 other interests, shall investigate and report on the follow23 ing supplemental actions by not later than September 30, 

24 1997-

•HR 1906 m 
127 

35 

1 "(A) alternative means of improving the reli2 ability and quality of water supplies currently avail3 able to privately owned wetlands in the Central Val4 ley and the need, if any, for additional supplies; and 

5 "(B) water supply and delivery requirements 

6 necessary to permit full habitat development for 

7 water dependent wildlife on one hundred and twenty 

8 thousand acres supplemental to the existing wetland 

9 habitat acreage identified in Table 8 of the Central 

10 Valley Habitat Joint Venture's 'Implementation 

11 Plan' dated April 19, 1990, as well as feasible 

12 means of meeting associated water supply require13 ments. 

14 • "(8) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 

15 enactment of the Central Valley Project &form Act of 

16 1995, the Secretary shall prepare a report in which the 

17 Secretary assesses whether the Dependable Water Supply 

18 Needs outlined in the &fuge Water Supply Report and 

19 the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson Mitigation 

20 Action Plan &port prepared by the Bureau of &clama21 tion accurately reflect reasonable dependable water supply 

22 needs for refuges, taking into account changes in habitat 

23 conditions and any other relevant factors. If the Secretary 

24 determines that the Dependable Water Supply Needs in 

25 such &ports do not reflect the reasonable dependable 

•HilliN IH 
128 

:36 

water supply needs for refuges, the Reports shall be re2 vised to reflect appropriate adjustments in the Dependable 

3 Water Supply Needs tables, and deliveries and increments 

4 described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection 

5 shall be adjusted accordingly to match the quantities spec6 ified in the revised Reports. The report shall be prepared 

7 \v:ith public involvement, including water contractors and 

8 users. 

9 "(9) Not later than one year after the date of the 

10 enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall11 "(A) using water measuring devices or other 

12 water measuring methods, determine the quantity of 

13 all water provided by the Secretary to areas referred 

14 to in paragraph (1) of this subsection; 

15 "(B) require that such areas be managed in ac16 cordance with water conservation plans which incor17 porate water conservation best management prac18 tices developed under section 3405(d) of this title; 

19 and 

20 "(C) if the Dependable Water Supply Needs 

21 levels specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this 

22 subsection do not correspond with the demonstrated 

23 need following implementation of best management 

24 practices under this paragraph, the levels shall be 

•HR 1906 m 
129 

37 

ad,justed accordingly to match the level of such dem2 onstrated need.". 

3 (9) Section 3406(f) of the Central Valley Project Im4 provement Act (106 Stat. 4724) is amended by striking 

5 "Committees on Insular and Interior Affairs and Mer6 chant Marine and Fisheries" and inserting "Committee on 

7 Resources". 

8 (10) Section 3406 (106 Stat. 4714), as amended by 

9 subsection (a) of this section, is further amended by add1 0 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

11 "(j) PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL WATER.-The Sec12 retary may acquire any water needed to carry out this title 

13 which is in addition to the water required to be made 

14 available under subsections (b)(2), (b)(22), and (d) only 

15 by purchase in accordance with State law. Such purchases 

16 shall be Federal nonreimbursable expenditures to the ex17 tent they are not funded through the Restoration Fund 

18 established in section 3407 of this title.". 

19 SEC. 7. RESTORATION FUND. 

20 (a) RESTORATION FUND ES'l'ABLISHED.-Section 

21 3407(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

22 (106 Stat. 4726) is amended to read as follows: 

23 "(a) RESTORATION FUND ESTABLISHED.-

24 "(1) There is hereby established in the Treas25 ury of the United States the 'Central Valley Project 

•HR 1906 IH 
130 

:38 

1 Restoration Fund' (hereafter 'Restoration Fund') 

2 which shall be available for deposit of donations 

3 from any source and revenues provided under sec4 tions 3405(e), 3406(c)(1)(D), and 3407(d) of this 

5 title. Amounts deposited shall be credited as offset6 ting collections. Monies donated to the Restoration 

7 Fund by non-Federal entities for specific purposes 

8 shall be expended for those purposes only and shall 

9 not be subject to appropriation. Notwithstanding 

10 any other provision of this title, the Secretary may 

11 not directly or indirectly r·equire a donation, or any 

12 other payment, to the Restoration Fund, or environ13 mental restoration or mitigation fees not otherwise 

14 provided by law, as a condition to providing for the 

15 storage or conveyance of non-Central Valley Project 

16 water pursuant to reclamation Jaws, or as a condi17 tion to the delivery of water pursuant to section 215 

18 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 

19 1270). 

20 "(2) The Secretary may utilize amounts col21 lected pursuant to section 3406(c)(1)(D) to assist in 

22 achieving applicable water quality standards imposed 

23 in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 

24 Delta Estuary, vvith emphasis on funding pr~jects 

25 described in section 3406( c)( 1 )(A) which vvill con-

•HR 1906 IH 
131 

39 

1 tribute to achieving such standards. The balance of 

2 all surcharges collected pursuant to section 

3 3406(c)(l)(D) shall be utilized by the Secretary to 

4 provide funding to the State of California or other 

5 entity described in section 3407 (e)( 1) to assist in the 

6 implementation of all projects described in such sub7 paragraph (A) to which funding is not directed pur8 suant to the preceding sentence.". 

9 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF' APPROPRIATIONS.-Section 

10 3407 (b) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

ll (106 Stat. 4726) is amended by inserting "(from willing 

12 sellers)" after "acquisition". 

13 (c) MITIGATION AND RES'roRATION PAYMENTS BY 

14 WA'rEH AND POWER BENEFICIAHIES.-Section 3407(c) of 

15 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

16 4726) is amended to read as follows: 

17 "(c) MITIGATIO!\T AND RESTORATION PAY:.\IENTS BY 

18 WATER AND POWER BENEFICIAHIES.-

19 "(1) To the extent required m appropriation 

20 Acts, the Secretary shall assess and collect addi21 tional annual mitigation and restoration pa:rments, 

22 in addition to the charges provided for or collected 

23 under sections 3405(a)(1)(B), 3405(e), and 

24 3406(c)(l)(D) of this title, consisting of charges to 

25 direct beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project 

•HR 1906 IH 
132 

40 

1 under subsection (d) of this section in order to re2 cover a portion or all of the costs of fish, wildlife, 

3 and habitat restoration programs and projects under 

4 this title. 

5 "(2) The payn:1ent described in this subsection 

6 shall be established at amounts that \:viii result in 

7 collection, during each fiscal year, of an amount that 

8 can be reasonably expected to equal the amount ap9 propriated each year, subject to subsection (d) of 

10 this section, and in combination with all other re11 ceipts identified under this title, to carry out the 

12 purposes identified in subsection (b) of this sec13 tion.". 

14 (d) ADJUSTMENT AND AsSI<JSS:Vmi\T OF MITIGATION 

15 1\1\iD RESTORATION PAYMENTS.-Paragraphs (1) and (2) 

16 of section 3407(d) of the Central Valley Pr~ject Improve1 7 ment Act ( 106 Stat. 4 72 7) are amended to read as follows: 

18 "(1) In assessing the annual payments to carry 

19 out subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary 

20 shall, prior to each fiscal year, estimate the amount 

21 that could be collected in each fiscal year pursuant 

22 to paragraph (2) of this subsection. The Secretary 

.23 shall decrease all such payments on a proportionate 

24 basis from amounts contained in the estimate so 

•HR 1906 m 
133 

41 

1 that an aggregate amount is collected pursuant to 

2 the requirements of subsection (c)(2) of this section. 

3 "(2) The Secretary shall assess and collect the 

4 following mitigation and restoration payments, to be 

5 covered to the Restoration Fund, subject to the re6 quirements of paragraph ( 1) of this subsection: 

7 "The Secretary shall require Central Val8 ley Project water and power contractors to 

9 make such additional annual payments as are 

10 necessary to yield, together with all other re11 ceipts, the amount required under subsection 

12 (c)(2) of this section: Provided, That such addi13 tional payments shall not exceed $30,000,000 

14 (October 1992 price levels) on a three-year roll15 ing average basis: Provided further, That such 

16 additional annual payments shall be allocated so 

17 as not to exceed $6 per acre-foot (October 1992 

18 price levels) for Central Valley Project water for 

19 agricultural use delivered by the Central Valley 

20 Project and received or transferred by a Central 

21 Valley Project water contractor, and $12 per 

22 acre-foot (October 1992 price levels) for Central 

23 Valley Project water for municipal and indus24 trial use delivered by the Central Valley Project 

25 and received or transferred by a Central Valley 

•HR 1908 m 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

42 

Project contractor: Provided further, That the 

charge imposed on agricultural water shall be 

reduced, if necessary, to au amount within the 

probable abilit,v of the water users to pay as determined and adjusted by the Secretary no less 

than every five years: Provided fwdher, That 

the Secretary shall impose an additional annual 

charge of $25 per acre-foot (October 1992 price 

levels) for Central Valley Project water sold or 

transferred, except water sold or transferred 

under the right of first refmml, to any State or 

local agency or other entity which has not previously been a Central Valley Projeet eustomer 

and which eontraets with the Se(~retary or nn.v 

other indiYidual or distriet reePivinr.; Central 

Valley Projeet water to purelmse or otherwise 

transfer any such water for its mvn use for municipal and industrial purposes, to he deposited 

in the Restoration J1'und: And Provided jkrther, 

That upon the completion of the fish, wildlife, 

and habitat mitigation and restoration actions 

mandated under section 3406 of this title, the 

Secretary shall reduce the sums described in 

subsection (c)(2) of this section to $35,000,000 

per year (October 1992 price levels) and shall 

•HR 11106 Ul 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

135 

43 

reduce the annual mitigation and restoration 

payment ceiling established under this subsection to $15,000,000 (October 1992 price levels) on a three-year rolling average basis. The 

amount of the mitigation and restoration payment made by Central Valley Project water and 

power users, taking into account all funds collected under this title, shall, to the greatest degree practicable, be assessed in the same proportion, measured over a ten-year rolling average, as water and power users' respective allocations for repayment of the Central Valley 

13 Project.". 

14 (e) FUNDING TO NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES.-Section 

15 3407(e) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

16 (106 Stat. 4728) is amended to read as follows: 

17 "(e) FUNDING TO NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES.-

18 "(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), if 

19 the Secretary determines that the State of California 

20 or an agency or subdivision thereof, an Indian tribe, 

21 or a nonprofit entity concerned with restoration, pro22 tection, or enhancement of fish, wildlife, habitat, or 

23 environmental values is able to assist in implement24 ing any action authorized by this title in an efficient, 

25 timely, and cost-effective manner, the Secretary is 

•HR 1906 m 
136 

44 

1 authorized to provide funding to such entity on such 

2 terms and conditions as he deems necessary to assist 

3 in implementing the identified action. 

4 "(2) The use of funding provided by the Sec5 retary to the State of California or other entity de6 scribed in section 3407 (e) (1) pursuant to subsection 

7 3407(a)(2) to assist in the implementation of 

8 projects described in section 3406(c)(l)(A) shall be 

9 as determined by the State of California or such 

10 other entity and shall not be subjected to terms and 

11 conditions imposed by the Secretary which are unac12 ceptable to the State of California or such other en13 tity. ". 

14 (f) RESTORATION Ft:ND FINANCL>\L REPORTS.-

15 Subsection (f) of section :3407 of the the Central Valley 

16 Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4728) is amended by 

17 striking "Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the 

18 Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries," and in19 serting "Committee on Resources". 

20 SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES. 

21 (a) ANNt:AI, REPOR'l'S.-Section 3408(f) of the 

22 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4729) 

23 is amended-

•HR IOOG m 
137 

45 

1 ( 1) by striking out "Interior and Insular Affairs 

2 and Merchant Marine and Fisheries" and inserting 

3 in lieu thereof "Resources"; and 

4 (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before 

5 the period at the end the following: ", including (but 

6 not limited to) progress on the plan required by sub7 section (j)". 

8 (b) PROJI<JCT YIELD INCREASE AND JUDICIAL DE9 CREES.-Subsections (j) and (k) of section 3408 of the 

10 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4730) 

11 are amended to read as follows: 

12 "(j) PROJECT YIELD lNCREASE.-ln order to mini13 mize adverse effects upon existing Central Valley Project 

14 water contractors resulting from the water reserved for 

15 fish and wildlife under this title, and to assist the State 

16 of California in meeting its future water needs, the Sec17 retary shall, on a priority basis, not later than two years 

18 after the date of enactment of the Central Valley Project 

19 Reform Act of 1995, develop and submit to Congress, a 

20 least-cost plan to increase, as soon as possible but not 

21 later than ten years after the date of enactment of this 

22 title, the yield of the Central Valley Project by the amount 

23 reserved and managed for fish and wildlife purposes under 

24 this title and otherwise required to meet the purposes of 

25 the Central Valley Project including, without limitation, 

·•HR 1806 m 
138 

46 

1 satisfying contractual obligations. In order to carry out 

2 this subsection, the Secretary is authorized and directed 

3 to coordinate with the State of California in implementing 

4 measures for the long-term resolution of problems in the 

5 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estu6 ary. The plan authorized by this subsection shall include 

7 (but not be limited to) a description of how the Secretary 

8 intends to use the follo'Wing options: 

9 "(1) Improvements in, modification of, or addi10 tions to the facilities and operations of the project. 

11 "(2) Conservation. 

12 "(3) Transfers. 

13 "(4) Conjunctive use. 

14 "(5) Purchase of water. 

15 "(6) Purchase and idling of agricultural land. 

16 "(7) Direct purchase of water rights. 

17 Such plan shall include recommendations on appropriate 

18 cost-sharing arrangements and shall be developed in a 

19 manner consistent with all applicable State and Federal 

20 law. Such plan shall also include recommendations for au21 thorizing legislation or other measures, if any, needed to 

22 implement the intent, purposes, and provisions of this sub23 section. 

24 "(k) JUDICIAL DECREES.-Except as specifically 

25 provided in this title, nothing in this title is intended to 

•:aR 1906 rn: 
139 

47 

1 alter the terms of any final judicial decree confirming or 

2 determining water rights. Notwithstanding any other pro3 vision of reclamation law, the judgment entered December 

4 30, 1986, by the United States District Court of the East5 ern District of California in the consolidated cases entitled 

6 Barcellos and Wolfsen, Inc., et al. v. Westlands Water 

7 District, et al. (No. CV 78-106 EDP) and Westlands 

8 Water District, et al. v. United States, et al. (No. CV F 

9 81-245 EDP), shall be deemed an existing long-term 

10 water service contract, which shall be renewable pursuant 

11 to section 3404( c) of this title.". 

12 (c) 'l'ECHNICAL AMENDMENT.-Section 3408(h)(2) 

13 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 

14 4729) is amended by striking out "(h)(i)" and inserting 

15 in lieu thereof "(h)(1)". 

16 (d) STANISLAUS RIVER.-Section 3408 of the 

17 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat 4 730) 

18 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

19 "(e)(1) The Secretary shall identify the water supply 

20 impacts resulting from the reallocation of Stanislaus River 

21 water for fish and wildlife purposes under this title, and 

22 no later than two years after the date of enactment of 

23 the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995, develop 

24 and implement a plan to provide long term replacement 

25 water in an amount equal to the identified water supply 

•HR 1006 IH 
140 

48 

1 impacts on out-of-basin entities which have contracted 

2 with the Secretary for water from the New Melones 

3 Project. In the event the available yield of the New 

4 Melones Reservoir is insufficient to meet the contractual 

5 needs of these districts, then the Bureau shall provide an 

6 alternative supply at the contractual rate. Allocations for 

7 other Central Valley Project contractors shall not be re8 duced as a result of deliveries from New Melones Reservoir 

9 or any alternative source to the Stockton East Water Dis1 0 trict and the Central San Joaquin \Vater Conservation 

11 District. 

12 "(2) The plan developed under paragraph (1) shall 

13 include (but not be limited to} utilization of exchange or 

14 transfer of water facilitated by the Secretary, other con15 junctive use facilities satisfactory to the contracting enti16 ties, and/or additional diversion facilities. In the event ad17 ditional facilities are authorized and constructed, out-of18 basin entities which have constructed diversion facilities 

19 on the Stanislaus River pursuant to contracts with the 

20 Secretary for water from the New Melones Project, shall 

21 be credited, in the calculation of capital for any such new 

22 facilities, with an amount equal to 75 percent of the costs 

23 associated with the construction of those Stanislaus River 

24 diversion facilities. The construction .of such facilities or 

25 the allocation of costs associated \\ith such facilities shall 

•HR 1906 m 
141 

49 

1 be treated as nonreimbursible capital costs of the Bureau 

2 and not result in increased allocation of costs to any other 

3 Central Valley Project contractor.". 

•HR 1906 m 
142 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL BRADLEY 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

JULY 20, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

testify today on the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA) and your efforts to amend it with your own bill, H.R. 

1906. As one of the authors of this landmark act, I retain a 

deep interest in all bills and regulations whicn affect its 

fortunes. 

The CVPIA was enacted to modernize the Central Valley 

Project and produce a balanced project which yields benefits for 

urban, environmental, Native American, state and Federal 

governments and commercial and sport fishing interests as well as 

for irrigated agriculture. But H.R. 1906 threatens to upset that 

careful balance by tilting the scales in favor of agriculture and 

reopening hostilities in California's long-standing water wars. 

Before passage of the CVPIA in 1992, the Central Valley 

Project was in crisis. It was a relic of an earlier era which 

emphasized delivery of irrigation water at the expense of other 

interests such as the water needs of fish and wildlife and urban 

dwellers. The CVPIA helped resolve the crisis with a groundbreaking approach to irrigation projects featuring water 

conservation, voluntary water transfers to non-agricultural 

users, and water for wildlife and fish. At the same time, the 

CVPIA guaranteed a majority of the Project's water for irrigated 

agriculture under twenty-five year contracts and at subsidized 

rates. 

Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for changes in the CVPIA. The 
143 

Act is working and it has worked in both wet and dry years. 

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle reports that California's 

salmon population has "exploded" this year to legendary 

proportio~s. Although this has been a very wet year, I believe a 

considerable part of this fish success story is attributable to 

the kinds of innovations contained in the CVPIA. According to 

California waterfmvl experts, the follr Sacramento Valley Wildlife 

refuges, allocated firm water supplies for the first time, 

experienced a 20'" increase in wat,;rfowl usage during the 199?-

1994 water year over previous years, before the CVPIA was 

enacted 

Instead of rushing to change the CVPIA, the Congress needs 

to adopt a few of the old-time virtues, starting with patience. 

How can we begin unraveling a bill which is less than three years 

old and which is still in a relatively early stage of 

implementation? According to the Department of Interior, 

numerous rules and regulations implementing the statute remain to 

be finalized. Appropriately, the rulemaking process and not new 

legislation should be the forum for resolving concerns with CVPIA 

implementation. In fact, we will not even know if there are 

flaws in the CVPIA itself until the rulemaking is completed. 

Patience is not the only virtue we must apply to California 

water issues. Cooperation is just as important. For example, 

cooperation is the key to the new Bay/Delta Accord, agreed to 

last December, which has all the primary stakeholders on 

California water issues working together to solve the problems of 

the San Francisco Bay Estuary. The presence of the CVPIA was 
144 

crucial to the success of this complex agreement. Unfortunately, 

H.R. 1906 would undermine the agreement even before it has been 

fully implemented. 

I am troubled by the fact that some members are attempting 

to take apart the 1992 Act piece-by-piece on other bills, such as 

the attempt through the budget process to shut down the San 

Joachim study before it reaches its conclusions on the 

feasibility of restoring the river. I assure you that any 

legislative alteration of the CVPIA will mco.t with the same 

strict scrutiny if it reaches the Senate. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1906 is the wrong bill at the wrong time. 

It imperils the Bay/Delta agreement which gives us the chance to 

work out water issues at the state level. Instead, Congress 

should be encouraging cooperative resolution for difficult 

resource issues. Revisiting the CVPIA at this early stage sends 

exactly the wrong message to those who look to Congress for 

certainty, fairness and good common sense. 
145 

BOARD OF SUPERVlSORS 

P.O. Drawer 1258 (916) 623·1217 

WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093 

DilrO B. Fort~lu11,d, Cltrk 

./tannic Ni:z-Templc, Admini:tr(llil.i• O(fu.•r 

WTIMQNY OF TRINITY COUNTY. CAlJFORN}A. IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRINITY 

RIVER PROVISIONS OF H.R 1900 

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors opposes the deleterious attention of the Riggs 

Amendment to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act which is proposed by H.R. 1906. 

The alteration does nothine to improve the Trinity River Flow Decision addressed by the Riggs 

Amendment (Section 3406(b)(23)), <Utd is a thinly veiled attempt to delay implementation of that 

vitally important decision. Tbe alteration would add needless bureaucratic ptOCedurc, 

paperwork, and costs onto an alteady open, public process that has taken nearly IS years and 

millions of dollars to complete. Continued delay of the Interior Secretary's 1996 Trinity River 

Flow Decision is, in essence, continuance of a "taking• a,eaifiSt the people and economies of 

Trinity County, the Klamath· Trinity basin, and the Northern California· Southern Qreeon coastal 

region. 

When the Trinity Division was proposed in the 1950s, the people of Trinity Co1111ty were 

promised that •not one bucketful" of Trinity River water necessary in the basin would be 

expot1ed for CVP use. We were promised our economy would be improved. Instead, since 

completion of the Trinity Division in 1963, we have seen 90% of the Trinity River flow at 

lewiston exported out of the basin, with devastating impacts to the local and regional economy 

from depressed fish populations a:td an altered ecogystem. For the past five years, the Trinity 

River fall king salmon run has not met minimum escapement levels for returning adult 

spawners. Fishing regulations have tif;htened to the point that catch and release is, at times, our 

only fishing opportunity. The results are measurable in business closures, high unemployment, 

and pervasive federally-caused economic anemia. 

In recent years our local economy has also been devastated. by the severe decline in the timber 

industry as a result of the listing of the spotted owl and other envirorunenml restrictions. 

Altering the Riggs Amendment and thereby postpor.ing a therapeutic flow decision will depress 

our timber industry even further, by shifting the emphasis of fishery restoration efforts towards even more otherv.ise unnecessary restrictions on watershed land use, and und.ermlning 

significant collaborative efforts by timber and other interests to restore fish populations without 

additional regul:ltion. The 1996 Trinity River Flow Decision is one of the bright spots in our 

precarious economic picture, providing some hope of better times to come in the two industries 

which sustain us. 

Under the CVPIA, the Interior Secretary will make his decision on permanent Trinity River 

instream flows and Trinity Division operating criteria by December 31, 1996. The flow 

decision is bei.1g comprehensively evaluated in an environmental review process pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Aet and the California Environmental Quality Act. Trinity 

County, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife ServJce are the lead agencies for the "Trinity River Mains;em Fishecy Re.'>toratjon 

Environmental Impact S;,atemeot!Environmenta!Jmpact Report"· (Trinity EIS/EIR). There are 

several state, federal and tribal agencies cooperating with the lead agencies to develop a 

meanin&ful analy>ie of the flow decision. As requited by NEPA and CEQA, the flow decision 
146 

will be analy%ed alona with othet possible alternatives 10 meet tllc fiJhcry restoration goals of 

P.L. 98-541 and to meet the Federal tn!St obligation to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes. 

This is an established, sc:iencc-drlven process Into whict millions of dollars have already been 

invested; the public Is fully engaged, and there will be numerous oppottuni.ties for public review 

and input. We expoct the Trinity EIS!EI.R 10 be a model of federal, tribal and local cooperation 

on an issue of local, regiooal and natiooal i.gnificance. 

Application of an Administrative Procedures Act review to the Trinity River Flow Decision is 

politics a1 its worst and contrary lo the promise of the Contract With Amerlea to reduce red tape 

and the cost of aovernn'ltmt. It is obvious from earlier drafts of this bill circulatal by the 

Central Valley Project Water Association that the real intent is to cap Trinity River flows at the 

cUl'n!llt minimum of 340,000 acre feet per year and indefinitely delay the Trinity River Flow 

Decision. A rulemaklng hurdle, especially with a mandated minimum comment period, would 

confer an open-enlled oppottuni.ty to delay and perhaps detail the permanent flow decision, and 

it would reqM more federal monc;y to enallie. It would not confer oppottuni.ties for the 

public, includin& the CVP contractors, to comment and shape the decision beyond those 

otherwise afforded by the enVironmental review process which is already underway, Indeed, 

the EIS/EIR review will examine a broader ranl,le of alternatives, economic factol'S and analyses 

than would a rulemaldng proceeding. We know this to be true because Trinity County, as a lead 

agency in the environmental review, is actively shaping the scope and content of that review. 

What sense doe! it make to :o throu&h a public review and comment process under NEPA for 

two yea..-s and then require the Se.::retary to go througb another public review and comment 

process under the APA on a narrower range of the same issues? This is, at best, needless 

bureaucratic inefficiency. 

Another alteration of the Riggs Amendment which we strenuously object to is the proposed 

deletion of the word "and" at the end ofthe first sub-paraaraph of Section 3406(b)(23). That 

deletion disassociates the 1996 flow decision from the requirement to meet P.L. 98-541 fishery 

restoration gt'als and the Federal trust responsibilities to the Hoopa Valley Trlbe. 

The question of whether the permanent flows should vary according to hydroloaic and reservoir 

slorage conditions should ~ decided on the basis of the scientific studies which are nearinc 

completion, not by political fiat. However, we understand that the proposed flow decision and 

Trinity Division operatin& criteria will vary accordin& to S diffCRlllt water year typet and 

reservoir carryover Storage conditions. 

In conclusion, we urae the subcommittee to delete any references to the Trinity River from 

H.R.. 1906. The existin11 process is worlcing well and we do not see anything positive in the 

proposed CVPIA amendment tela.tive to the Trinity River. The 1996 Trinity River Flow 

Decision should not be subverted- it Is an established process which is intended to make right 

the wrongs of the past. Let's continue to work on solutior.s to theae complex problems by using 

science and the existina: regulatory fnunework, not political chlcanc::ry and deceptive re&ulatoty 

roadblocks to progress. Please doo 't compound the problems of the Trinity River fisbery with 

this proposed le&islation. Thank you. 

Approved 1uly 18, 1995 an 

of Supervisors 
147 

City of Redding 

DAVID A. KEHOE M.,).X 

Hono rable Wally Herger 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2433 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

July 17, 1995 

L-040-070 

Subject: HR 1905: Proposed Central Valley Project Reform Act of 

1995 

De a r Congressman Harger: 

Tha:1k :;ou for yc•;r recent request for the City of Redding's comments on the subject legislation. The proposed legislation is 

of interest to Redding as it affects both our water and electric cust c~e rs. We are pleased to know that Congress is moving ahead >~ith legislation to provide much-need"!d clarification regarding 

Cor.g::-essiona l int~nt for implementat ior. of the CVPIA . 

The proposed legislation wo uld certainly be benefic i al f or Reddi ng's water ~;s torr.ers, and we appreciate your diligence to prote<::t county-of-origin rights. From Redding's electric 

customers' point of view, the net effect of the bill is not clear . The c urrent for:n of the bill leaves unce::-tain the amotJn~. that power cust.::ne::cs may ultimately be required to pay to the Res torat i on fund. 

Reddo:'\g suggests that the bill be modified to provide !=- O'"er cust omers the same kind of assu rance that water customers will have 

rega::-ding a maximum limit on payments to the Rest o ration Fund. We 

understand that the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) will soon be providing specific language changes to appropriately limit 

power customers ' funding obligations. We respectfully request that 

you support NCPA's changes. 

Thank you for your consideration of Redding's interests. 

Sincerely, 

c: City Council 

760 PAR"'VIEW AVENUE. REDDI!I.'G, CA 96001-3396 • P.O. I!Ox 496071, 96049-6071 • <916) 225-4000 
Wally Hargw,. 

419 Hamata~ Oriva, suite 115 

Reading, CA 96002 

148 

.July 17, 191i1!5 

Your latter m~nticns ~r•a gf oriRin righta. I find 

no 111antion of it in the dret't or bill, 1aoe. Realizing how 

little clout North Statv ~l•ctorote haa, l cannot axproaa 

too strongly that th1a naada to bv addraaavd in th1a bill. 

Northarn C4lit'ornia la entitled to straight languaga that 

w~tor righta will not ba involvad in any way. 

Paga 1~ • linea 21 through 24. I would change tot 

STRlKt LINE 21 - 22 thru 24 to reMd. Tha waoratary ahall 

be roquiraa to operoto the proje~t wt all tim•• in • way 

that will never jeopardize human haalth, walfara, or aafaty. 

ON CDNTRACTSt Paga 4 !ina 14 thru page 8 lina 13 - 1a all 

hog waah. That i» written ~o that !n arbitration any contract 

c~uld b• invedc~ - con~rea~ wo1Jld be or n~ valu•. Fo~ God ••ke 

W•l~y, ~-~• • go~tr•ot • nont~aot no• • ~·•"• b~ ~"1oh " 

tauhnacr~t can puah o~ ~uao!a a ailuat1on 3~aund to hi~ or 

he~ lJ.kina. 

ON TRANSFERS• A aituation w• have in the area ~howe 

that awction i& a jake. Llne 20 thru 21 ahowa the t~ehnocrat 

at it egain. 

One muat; ramemba~ thet the wholw thins ia written for 

th• l•rs• u•or~ The prawsu~• th•~ o•n b~lne ~o b••~ ic much 

mara th•n wa the ••all uftar. The lunguaga muat ba extremely 

~rotective o' tha amoll uaer. Thiw bill doao nat reFlaot 

that, ee I read it. 
149 

Statement of 

Daniel P. Beard 

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation 

Department of the Interior 

OJ:'l H.R. 1906 

Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995 

before the 

House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources 

July 20, 1995 

'Thank you for the opportunity to present the 

Administration's views on H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project 

Reform Act of 1995. 

As I will explain in my testimony, the Administration 

believes the bill is premature at this time. Less than three 

years ago, .·the congress passed by overwhelming margins, and 

President George Bush signed, the central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of P.L. 102-575). The CVPIA is a 

good law, balancing the needs of Central Valley Project customers 

including agricultural interests, power users, conservationists 

and urban areas as well as recognizing the trust responsibility 

to Native Americans. The law acknowledgea that all these sectors 

have a legitimate interest in the Central Valley Project. 

Supported by a broad coalition of urban, business, 

industrial, environmental and editorial organizations, the CVPIA 

was the culmination of a 15 year battle to insure the Central 

Valley Project was operated in a manner more consistent with 

California's current diverse needs. 

We believe that implementation of Title XXXIV continues to 

progress signi-ficantly. Throughout our· efforts to implement the 

CVPIA, we have met frequently with our stakeholders. About one 

year ago, we held a series of public meetings where we solicited 

comment on the need for creating an advisory committee for 

implementation. Based on the feedback we received, we determined 

there.was not widespread support for an advisory committee. We 

agreed, however, that the key to our success would be to establish a good, workable process that gives all stakeholders 

and the public the opportunity to impact significant decisions. 

We have continued to reach out to all stakeholders and the 

public. 

We agree with the view of many water users that it is 

premature to amend the CVPIA. We recognize, however, that not 

all water users are happy with the law. In response, we have 

begun to take steps to administratively correct some of the 

problems water users have expressed. 

1 
150 

In fact, many of the provisions in H.R. 1906 have been or 

could be addressed administratively without the need for 

additional legislation. For example, section S(j) of H.R. 1906 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with the 

state of California in implementing measures to resolve problems 

in the san Francisco Bay/Sacramento-san Joaquin Delta Estuary. 

In accordance with the Bay Delta Accord signed by the Department 

of the Interior, the State of California, the Department of 

Commerce, and the Environmental. Protection Agency. December 15, 

1994, we are already working with the State of California on 

this. The BayJDelta Accord was supported by agricultural, urban, 

business and environmental interests and moved the parties toward 

resolution of issues that have been the source of conflict in 

California for many years. H.R. 1906 would undermine the Accord 

and negate the progress to date. 

Here are a few of the administrative actions we have already 

taken, making adoption of additional legislation unnecess.ary. 

• MEASUREMENT OF WATER USE REQUIRED. Section S(f) 

would clarify that water meters, while not prohibited, also 

are not required on surface water delivery systems. We have 

already clarified this in 42 interim contracts with our 

contractors. 

• COMPLIANCE WITH RECLAMATION REFORM ACT. Section 5 would 

clarify that compliance with the water conservation 

guidelines and criteria in the CVPIA also would be deemed to 

meet the requirements in section 210 of the Reclamation 

Reform Act. The Bureau of Reclamation has already stated 

this position in a letter sent to interim water contractors. 

• ACQUISITION FROM WILLING SELLERS -- Section 7 stipulates 

that funds appropriated for acquisition of water or habitat 

shall only be used in purchases with willing sellers. All 

the water t.hat Reclamation has purchased under the authority 

of the CVPIA for use at wildlife refuges, such as Sacramento 

and Delevan, or for fisherY purposes has coma from willing 

sellers exclusively. 

The Department recognizes the need to be flexible and work 

with stakeholders to maintain the consensus we reached in 

California last December. In addition to the administrative 

steps we have already taken in response to concerns expressed by 

agricultural water users, we recognize that we can do more. 

For example, the provisions in paragraph (5) on page 33 of 

H.R. 1906 would mandate a 25 percent reduction in water 

deliveries to refuges during a drought, rather than merely 

authorize such a reduction, as the current law provides. The 

Department believes administrative actions will achieve the same 

result. For example, earlier this water year, we used an · 

2 
151 

integrated management approach for the use of Section 3406(b) (2) 

water. Using the authority in the CVPIA, we prepared a plan 

which will enable us to meet fish flow requirements and the needs 

of our customers. This approach has permitted us to apply the 

available maximum of 800,000 acre feet of dedicated water, and 

obtain additional water using monies available from the 

restoration fund. We are currently meeting the fish flow 

requirements and intend to allow remaining water to ,be used for 

other project purposes. The Department, by taking these 

administrative actions, can achieve the results sought in H.R. 

1906. 

The Department does not, however, agree with many of the 

provisions of H.R. 1906 which we believe, if enacted, would 

jeopardize the consensus reached in water policy in California. 

For example, we oppose the provision in paragraph (4) on page 33 

of H.R. 1906 which would make all taxpayers -- as opposed to only 

the Central Valley Project beneficiaries -- pay the costs 

associated with the delivery of water to refuges. We believe 

that those who benefit from the Central Valley Project should 

bear the mi·;:.igation costs. 

The Department opposes provisions in Section 3 which would 

eliminate all environmental restoration goals for striped bass, 

sturgeon and American Shad. All are important to the commercial 

and sport fisheries industries, and important indicators of the 

overall health and productivity of the ecosystem. 

The Department also opposes provisions in H.R. 1906 which 

would cap at 340,000 acre feet the instream flows of the Trinity 

River. In addition, Section 6 would subject future flow decisions 

based on the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service's Trinity River Flow 

Evaluation Study to another formal r~lemaking. The Department 

already has a public process underway. We are nearing completion 

of the .Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study evaluating the fish 

and wildlife needs and instream flows in the Trinity River. Once 

the study is completed, the Department, based on scientific 

evidence, will be in a position to evaluate how much water is 

needed in the Trinity River. An additional rulemaking will add 

an unwarranted and costly level of review to a process that has 

enjoyed and continues to enjoy tremendous public participation, 

and that will be subject to additional public involvement over 

the coming months as we prepare a full environmental impact 

statement. 

The Department has been taking the necessary steps to 

implement the CVPIA. The Department also has responded to water 

users' concerns by making appropriate administrative changes and 

is willing to continue to meet with stakeholders to make 

additional changes. We survived the fourth worst drought in 

history while the CVPIA was in-place. We are now in an era of 

surplus and the CVPIA continues to work. At this juncture we see 
152 

no reason to reopen the Act. 

Simply put, we think H.R. 1906 is premature and 

unnecessary. The legislation threatens the historic consensus 

that has brought together a l l stakeholders in California's water 

issues. H.R. 1906 could undermine the landmark Bay-Delta Accord 

signed by the state and federal governments on December 15, 1994, 

as well as the joint state-federal long-term Delta planning 

process now taking shape. 

In addition~ the Administration is concerned that reopening 

the CVPIA -- that is, revisiting who gets how much water for what 

purpose, at what price and under what conditions -- will lead to 

the return of gridlock in California's water policies. To 

jeopardize the hard-won consensus will be harmful to the overall 

economy in California. Just a few months ago, Standard and Poors 

said that the water accord was responsible for stabilizing the 

credit quality of most California water suppliers. Prior to the 

agreement, standard and Poors had expressed concern that the BayDelta water supply was unreliable and could prompt some water 

providers to build costly capital projects 1 thus jeopardizing 

their credit ratings. 

We view the CVPIA as an important initiative by Congress, 

which in tandem with the Bay Delta Accord, is bringing back a 

needed balance and certainty to the water picture in California. 

For the first time in the history of the Central Valley Project, 

under the CVPIA all stakeholders are working together to address 

California's water needs. At this point, we urge that the , 

Congress give the CVPIA the opportunity to meet the objectives 

that Congress established less than three years ago. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

4 
153 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES 

TESTIMONY 

OF THE 

BAY -DELTA URBAN COALITION 

ON 

H.R. 1906 

JULy 20, 1995 

CHAIRMAN DOOLITTLE AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

The members of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition (Urban Coalition) thank the 

Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony on HR 1906, legislation to amend 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

The Urban Coalition consists often large and diverse California urban water 

suppliers who have joined together to form and communicate common views with regard to 

administrative, regulatory and legislative actions affecting the Bay-Delta 1 . These agencies 

include: 

Alameda County Water District 

• Central Coast Water Authority 

• City and County of San Francisco, Public Utilities Commission 

• Coachella Valley Water District 

• East Bay Municipal Utility District 

1 Seven of the ten agencies listed above are also members of California Urban Water Agencies 

(CUW A), which is a separate, non-political organization that focuses primarily on coordination of 

technological and professional resources to address California's current and future water needs. CUW A takes 

no position on this or any other legislation. 
154 

• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

• Municipal Water District of Orange County 

• San Diego County Water Authority 

• Santa Clara Valley Water District 

• Solano County Water Agency 

Two members of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition, the Santa Clara Valley Water 

District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District, are Central Valley Project (CVP) water 

contractors, and proposed reform of the CVPIA would have direct financial and water supply 

impacts on them. Each Urban Coalition member has unique political circumstances and 

alliances which may influence, to some degree, the formation of a common urban position. 

For example, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is an active member of the Central Valley 

Project Water Association, the group of agricultural contractors which initiated drafting of 

H.R. 1906. The East Bay Municipal Utility District, on the other hand, is an active member of 

Share the Water, a major California environmental coalition currently opposed to any 

amendment of the CVPIA. The Urban Coalition brings together urban water suppliers in both 

northern and southern California, and includes the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California, this nation's largest water wholesaler. We believe that the diverse interests of BayDelta Urban Coalition members have enabled the Urban Coalition to provide a well-balanced 

response to H.R. 1906. 

Three members of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition are here today to testifY: 

Mr. Robert R. Smith, Assistant General Manager of the Santa Clara Valley Water District; 

Mr. Timothy H. Quinn, Deputy General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California; and Ms. Laura King, Environmental Affairs Officer of the East Bay 

Municipal Utility District. Mr. Smith and Mr. Quinn will be testifying on behalf of the Urban 

Coalition and Ms. King is available for questions. 

Our greatest shared concern is to be able to provide a reliable water supply to 

California's growing population and dynamic economy. The members of the Bay-Delta Urban 

Coalition supply water to approximately 22 million people, or two-thirds of the state's 

population. Commerce and industry in the Urban Coalition's urban service areas generate 

over 11 million jobs, and over three-fourths of the state's $800 billion gross annual product. 

In fact, the California urban economies served by Urban Coalition member agencies generate 

roughly 10% of the total economy of the United States. Much of California's urban water 

supplies originate in the Bay-Delta watershed, and thus the Urban Coalition has an enormous 

stake in any legislative p!oposal which would affect the federal government's responsibilities 

and activities to resolve Bay-Delta issues. 

We believe that the surest pathway, perhaps the only pathway, to reliable urban 

water supplies and stability in managing those water supplies, is a consensus approach. The 

Bay-Delta Accord, signed on December 15, 1994, is a prime example of such a consensus 

approach. It represented a significant step in protecting California's environmental resources 

and in providing water supply reliability to the state's urban populations and economies. The 

-2-
155 

three-year Accord was achieved through a consensus process that brought together urban, 

agricultural, and environmental interests, as well as state and federal government 

representatives. Both the Accord and the consensus process which created it provide a 

foundation upon which to build long-term resolution ofBay-Delta environmental and water 

supply issues. The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition is committed to preserving the institutional and 

political stability necessary to maintain the Accord, in order to allow the consensus process to 

move forward toward long-term goals. 

A key factor in the stability of the Bay-Delta Accord is the CVPIA, which 

requires the federal government to dedicate annually over L3 million acre-feet (AF) of CVP 

water, to collect annually over $30 million from water and power contractors, and to carry 

out numerous programs and projects, all aimed at environmental mitigation, enhancement and 

restoration. The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition strongly supports the environmental purposes 

and goals of the CVPIA. In addressing administrative, regulatory or legislative proposals 

related to the CVPIA, the Urban Coalition's paramount objective is to maintain the 

environmental integrity of the CVPIA The Urban Coalition also strongly supports the 

CVPIA' s fundamental approach to the use of the CVP system, which includes (I) restoring 

balance among environmental, water supply and other project purposes, and (2) providing 

flexibility to meet urban as well as agricultural water supply needs more effectively. 

In considering H,R 1906, the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition first took a hard look 

at how the CVPIA has been implemented so far by the responsible federal agencies. Progress 

has been made on many of the programs and projects mandated by the CVPIA However, it is 

evident that, despite good intentions, implementation has been hampered by inefficient 

coordination between state and federal agencies, lack of appropriate stakeholder involvement 

in decision-making, and disagreements over interpretation of specific legislative language and 

intent. These factors have led to reduced environmental benefits, and to substantial 

uncertainty for all CVP water users, panicularly urban water agencies tl)'ing to assess the 

reliability of CVP water supplies and urban water agencies hoping to engage in a CVP water 

transfer market. The Urban Coalition believes that, if allowed to continue along its current 

path, CVPIA implementation will continue to deteriorate and eventually polarize Bay-Delta 

interests to such an extent that comprehensive resolution of long-term Bay-Delta problems 

will slip from our grasp. 

Many, perhaps even most, of the implementation problems related to the 

CVPIA might be solved through improved administration. The burden is certainly on the 

federal agencies and policy makers to provide stronger guidance and more definitive 

administration in a timely manner. Some issues, however, might best be solved through 

amendments to the CVPIA. We also recognize that some administrative remedies benefit 

from statutory support, and because amendments now are being considered, these 

administrative remedies might also be usefully addressed in RK 1906. 

The important thing is to continue to move forward to make the CVPIA, and 

the Bay-Delta Accord, a success. The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition intends to focus its efforts 

-3-
156 

on resolving as many CVPIA implementation problems as possible through administrative 

remedies. At the same time, with H.R 1906 being introduced and the need for legislation 

likely, the Urban Coalition has worked hard to define a position on amendments to the current 

law which focus on preserving the environmental integrity of the original Act, establishing a 

more effective implementation process, and resolving the most fundamental problem areas. 

The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition cannot support H.R 1906 as introduced 

because it is not consistent with the urban position in a number of areas. Key concerns of the 

Urban Coalition with H.R 1906 include: 

• Unclear direction regarding the primary purpose, crediting, and reuse of water 

dedicated or reserved for environmental purposes. 

• Weakening of federal involvement in anadromous fish restoration. 

• Reductions in Restoration Fund revenues. 

• No provision to establish a more effective implementation process. 

• No definition of reliability for CVP urban water supplies. 

• Establishing federal pre-eminence over water management on the upper San 

Joaquin River. 

Despite these concerns, we believe that there is substantial potential to amend 

H.R. 1906 into a bill that the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition can support. The Urban Coalition 

has already met a number of times with agricultural, environmental and federal resource 

agency representatives to discuss appropriate administrative and legislative remedies to 

CVPIA implementation problems. The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition is committed to continuing 

these discussions with the goals of improving CVPIA implementation and, if possible, 

developing H.R 1906 into legislation that can be more broadly supported by all affected 

interests. 

The remainder of this testimony sets out the principal substantive elements of 

the Urban Coalition's position, along with summaries comparing HR. 1906 and the urban 

position, including brief descriptions of major differences. 
157 

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• The environmental integrity of the CVPIA must be maintained. Environmental projects 

and programs required by the CVPIA should be developed and implemented in a way that 

furthers the goals of the Act and the December 1994 Bay-Delta Accord. 

• Environmental obligations of water and power contractors under the CVPIA should 

equitably reflect the environmental impacts of those contractors. 

• Amendments to the CVPIA must not result in shifting an obligation that otherwise should 

be borne by the CVP to any other lawful water user. 

• The environmental projects and programs required under the CVPIA should use sound 

science to develop and implement reasonably achievt'ole projects or programs. 

• Completion of the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of Section 3409 of the 

CVPIA should be expedited. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

While H.R. 1906 proposes some needed changes in CVPIA implementation, 

the Urban Coalition believes some of those changes compromise the environmental integrity 

of the CVPIA. The Urban Coalition proposes to improve CVPIA implementation and 

maintain the fundamental obligations to provide money and water to achieve the 

environmental purposes of the Act. 

JOINT STATE-FEDERAL-STAKEHOLDER PROCESS 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• A joint State-Federal-Stakeholder process is necessary to assist the Secretary in decisionmaking regarding some or all of the provisions relating to the Restoration Fund, 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan, the 800,000 AF, and San Joaquin River restoration. 

• The joint State-Federal-Stakeholder process should include formal stakeholder 

involvement by agricultural, agency {State and federal), urban, and environmental 

interests. The process would require that the Secretary give substantial deference to 

recommendations made through the process. 

-5-
158 

~ Recomrnendations made by stakeholders through 1bc joint State-Fedcral-Sti<k<:holdcf 

process should be given authority through mechanisms such as the Federal Advisor.) 

Committee Act. 

• To improve the efficiency of CVPIA implementation, the joint State-Federal-Stakeholder 

process should be coordinated with other Bay-Delta implementation groups such as 

CALFED. 

• The joint State-Federal-Stakeholder process must include a dispute resolution process to 

ensure stakeholder involvement results in broadly supported, achievable recommendations 

to the Secretary. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

H.R. 1906 does not provide for establishing a joint State-Federal-Stakeholder 

process that builds communication and trust between the implementing agencies and 

stakeholders. Many of the changes proposed by H.R. 1906 might be resolved administratively 

if such an effective process was established legislatively. The process would also better 

ensure that CVPIA implementation achieves a reasonable balance among the competing 

demands for CVP water. 

URBAN WATER SUPPLIES 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• A minimum level of contract deliveries for municipal and industrial Municipal and 

Industrial (M&I) purposes should be at least 75% of contract quantity. 

The reliability of contract deliveries for M&I purposes should be consistent with the 

greater costs that are allocated to the M&I purpose relative to the irrigation purpose in 

current CVP cost allocations. 

• The reliability defined for M&I water supplies through the CVP Reform Act should be 

provided under future renewed or amended contracts, and under existing contracts to the 

extent it does not conflict with existing shortage provisions. 

• CVP agricultural water supplies that are converted or transferred to M&I use should 

retain the reliability of their original purpose. 

-6-
159 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

H.R. 1906 does not address the need for certainty in urban water supplies. 

The Urban Coalition recognizes that the CVPIA's purpose ofbalancing competing demands 

for CVP water must include a minimum delivery standard for M&I contract amounts to reflect 

the greater cost paid for M&I supplies. 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• The primary use of the 800,000 AF is for the purposes of environmental protection and 

restoration. 

• Reuse of the 800,000 AF for water supply purposes should be allowed to the extent it 

does not conflict with other environmental requirements. 

• The quantities specifically reserved by the CVPIA are: 800,000 AF under Section 

3406(b)(2); Level2 refuge supplies under Section 3406(d); and 340,000 AF ofTrinity 

River water under Section 3406(b){23) which may be increased pending completion of 

appropriate environmental documentation and a full public process. 

• Additional water beyond these reservations to accomplish the environmental goals of the 

CVPIA must be obtained through purchases of water from willing sellers or other 

measures that do not involve involuntary reallocation of contract deliveries. 

• Central Valley Project water obligations identified pursuant to the Bay-Delta Water 

Quality Control Plan (BDWQCP) in excess ofD-1485, and identified after October 1992 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), must be credited against the 800,000 AF. 

• The 800,000 AF is not a limitation on CVP water obligations established by the 

BDWQCP, ESA or other regulatory actions. 

• Water released to satisfy the obligation to deliver 800,000 AF can not be required as Delta 

outflow unless such requirement would achieve a specifically identified environmental 

benefit. 

• The Joilrt State-Federal-Stakeholder process should be used to ensure the 800,000 AF 

provides the maximum environmental benefit 

-7-
160 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

The language ofH.R 1906 does not make clear that the 800,000 AF is 

reserved for the primary purpose of environmental protection and restoration. H.R. 1906 also 

overly restricts use of the 800,000 AF for Delta outflow, and could allow reuse of the 800,000 

AF for contractor deliveries even if it negatively impacts the environment. The concept for 

crediting the 800,000 AF expressed in H.R 1906 is consistent with the Urban Coalition 

position, however, the language requires clarification to eliminate possible interpretation 

problems. 

ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• Restoration of anadromous fish in the Bay-Delta should be a joint State-Federal 

responsibility, and there should be a federal contribution toward meeting restoration goals. 

• One joint State-federal fish restoration program should be developed and implemented by 

a joint State-Federal-Stakeholder body with formal stakeholder involvement in the process 

to ensure reasonable, prudent, and feasible methods and priorities for fish restoration. 

• The anadromous fish restoration program should be based on sound science. The 

program should focus on restoration of native anadromous fish, and include an ecosystem 

approach toward all species. 

• The goal to double anadromous fish production should be reevaluated upon completion of 

technical analyses of options for meeting the goal. To the extent the doubling goal cannot 

be reasonably achieved, the doubling goal should be considered satisfied by the reasonable 

effons which most closely achieve the goaL 

• Consistent with the CVPIA, the program should give priority to measures that protect and 

restore natural channel and riparian habitat values through habitat restoration actions and 

modification in CVP operations. 

• The anadromous fish restoration program should include viable hatchery stocks in addition 

to increased natural production. Modern hatchery facilities, production techniques, and 

transfer of fish stocks may be used to rebuild fish stocks where natural production alone is 

unable to achieve the doubling goal of the anadrornous fish restoration program 

-8-
161 

Comparison with B.R. 1906: 

H.R 1906 basically removes the federal obligation to double anadromous fish 

by requiring the Secretary ofinterior only to "assist" the State in achieving its anadromous 

fish restoration goals. The Urban Coalition retains the federal obligation in a more definitive 

way by requiring a joint State-federal anadromous fish restoration program. 

RESTORATION fl!ND 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• The uncertainty of Restoration Fund money should be eliminated. $35-$40 million 

annually should be made available through adjustments to the $6 and $12 Restoration 

Payments paid by CVP water contractors, and adjustment to contributions from power 

contractors. Such payments and contributions should equitably reflect the environmental 

impacts of water and power contractors. 

• Decreases in revenues to the Restoration Fund should be offset by increases in other 

Restoration Fund payments. 

• The State and federal restoration funds should be coordinated. The coordinated funds 

should be administered by a joint State-Federal-Stakeholder body with formal stakeholder 

involvement. 

• Expenditures from the coordinated fund should be flexible and not restricted by predetermined formulas for flow and non-flow related measures (i.e. the 66/34 split for 

expenditures ofRestoration Fund monies) provided that an appropriate priority setting 

system for Restoration Fund expenditures is developed through the Joint State-FederalStakeholder process. 

Comparison with B.R. 1906: 

H.R 1906 eliminates tiered water rates and contact renewal surcharges which 

may decrease Restoration Fund revenues. The Uiban Coalition supports these changes but 

believes that any resulting reductions in Restoration Fund revenues must be replaced in a 

manner sufficient to accomplish the environmental objectives of the CVPIA. The Urban 

Coalition will work with water and power contractors and other stakeholders to determine 

appropriate adjustments to compensate for lost revenue. 

-9-
162 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• A San Joaquin River plan that includes fonnal stakeholder input as part of a joint StateFederal-Stakeholder process and optimizes benefits to fish and wildlife should be 

developed. The plan should consider a broad range of alternatives, but focus on only 

those alternatives that are the most reasonable, efficient, and readily achievable, giving 

consideration to restoration activities identified in previous San Joaquin River studies. 

The plan should be coordinated with the activities identified in the joint State-federal 

program to restore anadromous fish. Direct releases from Friant Dam intended to achieve 

the purposes of the CVPIA should be excluded from the scope of the plan. 

• Unless approved by Congress, releases from Friant Dam for specific CVPIA purposes 

should not be required. Notwithstanding this provision, a) Friant Division must meet its 

water release obligations in the San Joaquin Basin (i.e. contribution to downstream flow 

requirements including Bay-Delta requirements) through alternative means, and b) Friant 

Division must meet its financial obligation toward habitat restoration of the lower San 

Joaquin River. 

• No exemptions from State law or federal law should be provided. 

• The Friant Surcharge should not be capped and should be indexed to retain its value over 

time. The Friant surcharge should be assessed on all water actually delivered other than 

flood water delivered under Section 215 of the Reclamation Refonn Act. 

• Restoration Fund surcharges paid by the Friant Division should be used only for 

environmental restoration purposes in the San Joaquin River watershed from Friant Dam 

through the Bay-Delta. Use of such funds must result in benefits to fishery and ecosystem 

resources in the San Joaquin River watershed. 

Comparison with H.R.. 1906: 

The proposal in H.R 1906 to remove the upper San Joaquin River from the 

purview of State law is a key concern of the Urban Coalition. The proposal in H.R 1906 to 

eliminate the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Study is also a concern. The Urban Coalition 

believes that a San Joaquin River study developed through a joint State-Federal-Stakeholder 

process is needed Such a plan should focus on alternatives that do not require releases from 

Friant Dam for CVPIA purposes. H.R. 1906 also contains amendments that would reduce the 

Friant Unit's financial contributions to the Restoration Fund, and the Urban Coalition believes 

contributions should be maintained at a level consistent with their obligation for environmental 

restoration. 

-10-
163 

CQNJRACTJNG POLICIES 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• New contracts should be allowed only if the Secretary determines sufficient water is 

available after all existing envirorunental (including completion of the programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PElS) required under Section 3409) and contractual 

obligations have been met. 

• Interim contracts should continue without mandatory renegotiation and renewal every two 

years, but a finite ending date should be specified relative to completion of the PElS (e.g. 

within two years of filing Notice of Completion of the PElS). 

• Long-term contracts should be renewed on a non-discretionary basis for successive 25 

year periods upon request by contracting districts, provided the terms and conditions of 

those contracts, including price and quantity, are renegotiated at each renewal. In addition 

to any other appropriate environmental review, an assessment of the impacts of renewal 

including the impact on availability of urban water supplies should be performed for each 

25 year renewal. 

• The contract renewal surcharge should be eliminated, but decreases in revenues to the 

Restoration Fund should be offset by increases in other Restoration Fund payments. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

H.R. 1906 proposes to reduce contract uncertainty by guaranteeing contract 

renewal for 25 year terms. The Urban Coalition supports this change but requires that 

contract renewal must remain subject to negotiation of terms and conditions to reflect 

changing environmental and urban circumstances over time. H.R. 1906 is consistent with the 

Urban Coalition position in eliminating contract renewal surcharges, but resulting reductions 

in Restoration Fund revenues must be compensated. 

WATER TRANSFERS 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• Transfers, exchanges and banking arrangements that could have been accomplished prior 

to enactment of the CVPIA and that result in good water management should not be 

inhibited or rendered ineffective by administrative requirements. 

-11-
164 

• District review and approval or denial of proposed water transfers are appropriate if based 

on reasonable and objective criteria identified in a water transfer program developed by 

the district or the Secretary. 

• Districts should be obligated to develop and implement a water transfer program that 

facilitates water transfers under all hydrologic conditions if a formal request to transfer 

water is submitted by a district landowner. 

• The Secretary should establish a model water transfer program that districts may use in 

developing their own water transfer program, and which, in the absence of a district 

developed water transfer program, will be used by the Secretary to review and approve or 

deny proposed water transfers. 

• An appropriate and timely appeal process to the Secretary should be provided to review 

the objectivity and reasonableness of district water transfer programs and to review the 

application of those criteria in deciding to approve or deny proposed water transfers. 

• Districts that approve transfers based on groundwater substitutions are required to prepare 

and implement a groundwater monitoring and response plan that ensures the transfer has 

no significant long-term adverse impacts on groundwater conditions. 

• Transfers of prior rights water should be subject only to the $25 per acre-foot Restoration 

Fund fee. 

• Exercise of the right of first refusal on water transfers outside the CVP service area should 

be continued. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

H.R. 1906 is consistent with the Urban Coalition position in providing that 

water districts should have the primary role in reviewing and approving transfers, and that 

historic water transfers should be allowed to continue without increased administrative 

burden. H.R. 1906 proposes to eliminate the role of the Secretary of Interior in reviewing and 

approving water transfers except with regard to their impacts on the ability of the CVP to 

meet environmental obligations. This role appears to be too limited. The Urban Coalition 

believes that the Secretary has an obligation to facilitate water transfers and should be 

available for appeal to ensure that transfers are accomplished fairly and appropriately. 

-12-
165 

REFUGE SUPPLIES 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• Refuge water supply requirements should be reevaluated and increased or decreased 

accordingly to provide the appropriate finn water supplies needed to maintain and 

improve wetland habitat areas based on the best available science. 

• Measurement of water deliveries and implementation of best management practices should 

be required. 

• In order to minimize impacts on water contractors, the Secretary should be required to 

consider use of non-federal facilities for conveyance, provided that use of any non-federal 

facility is subject to approval by its owners, operators, and contractors. 

• Providing Level 2 water supplies should be a reimbursable expense. Acquisition of Level 

4 incremental supplies should be a Restoration Fund or non-reimbursable expense. 

• Shortages to refuges should be limited to 25%. The Secretary may impose shortages 

based on hydrologic or regulatory circumstances. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

H.R 1906 proposes to reevaluate the firm water needs of Central Valley 

wildlife refuges, and the Urban Coalition supports this reevaluation, provided that minimum 

deliveries may increase or decrease accordingly. H.R 1906 also directs the Secretary of 

Interior to consider use of non-federal facilities to deliver refuge supplies and the Urban 

Coalition supports use of non-federal facilities if approved by the facility's owner, operator, 

and contractors. 

TRINITY RIVER 

Urban Coalition Position: 

• Trinity River flows made available for environmental purposes should be 340,000 AF until 

the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study and Environmental Impact Statement are 

complete. 

• Prior to any decision to increase or decrease the 340,000 AF reserved for the Trinity 

River, a full public process should be required that includes formal stakeholder 

involvement. 

-13-
166 

n '"' amend the CVPIA by removi11g the ability of the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe az1d the SecretRrJ to increase Trinity River reserved flows without a public 

process separate from the environmental review process. The Urban Coalition supports 

stakeholder input il'l a full public process. 

CONSERVATION 

• Water conserved by contractors or refuges should accrue to the benefit of the contractor 

or refuge implementing the conservation measures, to the extent consistent with State law, 

and provided that refuge supplies do not exceed Level 4. 

• Water management measures required by the CVPIA should be based on measures that 

have demonstrated significant water conservation benefits and efficient management of 

water resources similar to those in the efficient water management program without 

unreasonably burdening contractors, and with appropriate c:.onsideration of each 

contractor's applicable circumstances. 

• Tiered water rates are not an appropriate water management tool for all contractors, and 

the requirement of tiered water rates in new long-term contracts should be eliminated 

Tiered water rates should be eliminated as a mandated program but retained as a 

conservation option available to meet conservation requirements. Decreases in revenue to 

the Restoration Fund should be offset by increases in other Restoration Fund payments 

• Conservation and water management requirements should apply equally to contract and to 

environmental water deliveries. 

• Conservation plans should be reviewed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expeditiously 

Comparison with B.R 1906: 

H.R 1906 would amend the CVPIA by eliminating mandatory tiered water 

rates. The Urban Coalition agrees that tiered water rates should be an optional conservation 

measure for districts where they are an effective water management tool, provided that 

resulting reductions in Restoration Fund revenues are compensated. 

-14-
167 

STANISLAUS RIVER 

• The impact of the CVPIA on water supplies for Stockton East Water District should be 

evaluated. 

Comparison with H.R. 1906: 

Changes proposed by H.R. 1906 require the Secretary of Interior to identifY 

the water supply impacts of the CVPIA and provide replacement water to entities that have 

contracted for water from the New Melones Project. The Urban Coalition supports 

identification ofCVPIA impacts. 

Conclusion 

The Bay/Delta Urban Coalition has proposed what we believe to be constructive and 

reasonable modifications to this important piece of legislation.· We hope to continue to be a 

part of the discussions to improve the implement of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act. 

Again, thank you very much for this opportunity to testifY before the Subcommittee. 

We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

-15-
168 

Testimony of 

Daniel G. Nelson 

Executive Director, San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

Before the Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Regarding H.R. 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

July 20, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good morning, my name is Dan Nelson, I am the Executive 

Director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, (the 

Authority) . 

The Authority is comprised of 31 water agencies generally on 

the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and extending into San 

Benito and Santa Clara Counties. Member agencies have contracts 

to receive a total of 3.3 million acre feet of water annually 

from the Central Valley Project. These agencies deliver water to 

about 1.3 million acres of the most efficiently irrigated farm 

land in the world, and to an urban population of about 500,000 

people. They also provide water to more than 75,000 acres of 

Pacific Flyway waterfowl habitat. 

Since enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act (CVPIA) in October of 1992, we - the customers of the CVP, 

and others - have struggled along with the federal agencies to 

implement the law. Water users have participated in literally 

hundreds of meetings with agency personnel and other stakeholders 

trying to achieve workable, effective and efficient 

implementation of the CVPIA. 

At the same time, our Authority continues to be extremely 

active in working on Bay-Delta issues. Our involvement in BayDelta issues has helped us focus on new and better approaches for 

implementing water policy and solving problems. 

We and the Bureau agree that 

the implementation of the CVPIA. 

several of these problems. Where 

them. 

there are many problems with 

Commissioner Beard has outlined 

we differ is on how to solve 

Water users believe that amending the CVPIA to provide 

certainty and clarity for all parties is the best solution. The 

Bureau, on the other hand, says: "Trust us. We' 11 do the right 

thing .... eventually." 

Well, we've already tried to do it the Bureau's way and it 

hasn't worked very well. The Bureau has strongly resisted 

improving its implementation of CVPIA, and the improvements that 

have been made have come only after long, tough struggles. In 
169 

fact, the Bureau has shown real enthusias•n for administrative 

remedies only since water users began seeking legislative 

solutions. 

As a result of our experience, we have seen a need for 

changes in policy direction relative to implementation of the 

CVPIA, as well as for changes in certain legislative directives 

outlined by the CVPIA. HR 1906 would provide badly needed 

clarification and direction for the responsible federal agencies 

so that environmental improvements and activities can be 

implemented promptly and effectively. 

I want to spend a few moments to address the kinds of things 

that HR 1906 does -- and to clarify what it doesn't do. 

1) HR 1906 reserves 800,000 acre feet of CVP water for systemwide fisheries protection, mitigation and restoration 

measures. This water would be used to meet ESA and 

Bay/Delta water quality needs as well as other environmental 

obligations. After the water has fulfilled its 

environmental purposes, it would be available for re-use by 

CVP customers. 

2) HR 1906 requires CVP customers to continue paying more than 

$30 million per year into a Restoration Fund. This money is 

earmarked for environmental restoration, protection and 

mitigation activities - including physical and operational 

changes to the CVP, acquisition of water, etc. 

3) HR 1906 continues to require implementation of many specific 

fishery improvements intended to restore or enhance Central 

Valley fish production. The bill also obligates the 

Interior Department to work jointly with the State in 

pursuit of California's "fish doubling• goal. H.R. 1906 

also maintains Trinity River fish flows of at least 340,000 

acre - feet annually while the need for additional flows is 

studied. 

4) HR 1906 maintains existing guarantees of firm water supplies 

for wetland habitat, and the bill continues to give wildlife 

refuges priority over agricultural users during shortages. 

5) HR 1906 continues to authorize water transfers outside the 

CVP service area in a manner that ensures that _they are 

feasible. It also clarifies that transfers within the 

CVP service area can continue unimpeded by bureaucratic 

delays. 

In short, H.R. 1906 continues to provide more than 1.3 

million acre-feet of water and tens of millions of dollars 

annually for environmental protection, enhancement and 

mitigation. Clearly, H.R. 1906 is not a •roll back" to the preCVPIA days. It is not a •gutting• of the law. If it were, there 
170 

would be no water or money for the environment. 

In fact, the provisions of HR 1906, combined with operations 

under the Bay/Delta agreement and ESA provisions, will result in 

water users in our area receiving only about 70 - 75 percent of 

their contract supply in average years. Only in flood years 

would we again receive our full contract entitlement. 

Bay-Delta Process 

As a participant in, and signatory to, the Bay-Delta process 

and accord, I want to reaffirm our commitment to the accord and 

its full implementation and to affirm that HR 1906 is not 

inconsistent with the Bay-Delta agreement. 

By better focusing the CVPIA toward implementation of 

environmental improvements, HR 1906 is intended achieve those 

improvements in a manner that is coordinated with state and local 

efforts, such as CALFED and Bay/Delta. HR 1906 could indeed 

enhance the Bay/Delta accord with more timely implementation and 

better coordination of implementation. 

Conclusion 

The only people who say that the CVPIA is perfect are the 

people who wrote it. I guess it's only natural for them to feel 

that way. 

But those who actually have to live with the law - -

California's agricultural and urban water agencies -- are asking 

Congress to make some reasonable improvements to CVPIA. 

H.R. 1906 is reasonable, despite all of the white hot 

rhetoric to the contrary. It attempts to bring balance and 

certainty to an important element of the overall solution to 

California water problems. Without that balance and certainty, 

progress on long-term solutions will be difficult, if not 

impossible. 

The customers of the CVP strongly support H.R. 1906, but we 

acknowledge that it can be improved For example, the ideas put 

forward by the Urban Coalition are very good, and we look forward 

to working on them with the Coalition and the Committee. 

We will work with any and all parties who want to rise above 

the rhetoric and make a genuine effort to ensure that the Central 

Valley Project fairly meets the needs of all Californians. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a some additional written 

material that I would like to submit for the record later. 
171 

Testimony of Thomas J. Graff 

Senior Attorney, Environments! Defense Fund 

on H.R. 1906, 

The Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995 

before the 

United States House of Representstives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommiuee on Water and Power Resources 

The Honorable John DooliUle, Chairman 

Washington, D.C. 

July 20, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: lam Thomas J. Graff, Senior Attorney of the 

Environmental Defense Fund {EDF). I very much appreciate your invitstion to testify here today. My 

principal purpose in testifying is to express EDF's sliong opposition to H.R. 1906. As the critique 

attsched to this testimony sets forth, our objections to H.R. 1906 go to the very heart of the bill. We 

simply do not believe any bill amending the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) is 

appropriate at this time and we have very specific problems with the bill that has been introduced. 

This is my first opportunity to appear before this subcommittee in the 104th Congress which, as you 

know much better than I, has an unusually large number of new members and a new majority party. 

For these reasons, before I begin a specific discussion of the CVPIA and UR. 1906, I hope· you will 

nnd it useful to you for me to relate a bit of EDF's and my own history, with respect 10 water 

resources policy, especially as it affects the Central Valley Project (CVP) and more specifically the 

CVPIA. 

I helped open EDF's West Coast office in August, 1971 arul within a year was actively involved in 

several major actions involving two large Congressionally-authorized additions to the CVP, the New 

Melones Dam on the Sta!W;Iaus River and the Auburn-Folsom South project on the American River. 

These actions (litigation and related administrative proceedings) dominated EDF's and my own 

activities respecting the CVP for much of the 1970s. As many of the subcointnittee members may 

know, our activities did not prevent the construction of New Melones, although they did affect its 

operating regime. However, along with many other factors, notsbly including an earthquake {possjbly 
172 

reipvoir-illduced) in-the vicinity o(the state-constructed Oroville Dam on the Feather River, they did 

oonlribute to the suspension of consUuCtioJ! of the Auburn-Folsom S!;>uth projecL· 

One interesting and perhaps unexpected aspect of our role in these controversies was that EDF became 

a atrong advocate of a-states' rights position vis-a-vis the issue of state authority to regulate water 

rights il! cohnectio~ with these Congressionally-authorized projects. !ndeed, in two cases which 

reacbed the t).S. Supreme Court, Unjted S!a!es v. !dl.if2mil (1978) and EOyjronmenta! Defense Fund 

v. Eaat Bay Myiucjoa! Utility Djstrict (1978), we were on the prevailing side of litigation wbich , 

established that the alate of Calif11rnia's laws control the operations of federal water facilities, subject 

10 Congress' authority to override Slate laW, poly when it explicitly decides tO do SO. Among the 

Justices ruling in favor of EDF's position were Chief Justice Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Coun and 

Justice Clark of the California Supreme Coun Oater appointed Seaewy of the Interior by President 

Reagan). w~ wrote two opinions in ~ v. ~ for the state court 

lbwards the end !)f the 1970s, however, it became cl~ to EDF and to me personally that a litigationdomina~d strategy to reform federal water policy was at best insuiftcient and ,indeed in some 

sigoiftcant respects counter-productive. It was in tbis period tllat the California water scene 

came to be dominated by the great Peripheral Canal controversy, culminating in a statewide 

referendum in June of 1982. Tbe debate over-the Canal split regions, constituencies, and political 

parties in Califofllia in a manner probably never seen before or since. For me, personally, however, it 

was a defining moment in my career as an environm.ental advocate. I found myself an active 

participan( in a campaign managed by the political consulting fum of Russo and Watts (whose 

principals. later became best known for their participation in campaigns to elect Governor Deukmejian 

and President Reagan). I also participated on a steering committee that oversaw the campaign wbich 

included representatives of two large 'agribusiness firms, the J.G. Boswell Co. and the Salyer Land Co., 

who also provided substantial fiDillCing for the anti-Canal position in the referendum. Ultimately, by 

a vote of more than 3 to 2 state~ide, our position in the referendum prevailed, and the Peripheral 

Canal was blocked. 

That campaign effectively lasted 5 years, from the date the flfSt bill authorizing the Cl!lal was 

introduced in the State Legislature and supported by then-Governor Jerry Brown. During that period, 

it became apparent to EDF tliat, although we might be partially successful in blocking large water 

projects by litigation and by joining many otbers in a political campaign, it was at least as essential to 

the &CCQmplishment of our environmental objectives that we put forward aJfumative alternatives. The 

key to our success was going to be that we not limit ourselves to promoting environmentally positive 

outcomes, but that we also meet the principal goals of the water development community, who had 

been our frequent adversaries over the prior decade. 

This led us in the early 1980s to the publication of a major report entitled Trading Cooservatjon 

Investments for Water: A Prooosal for the Metropolitan Water Distrjct of Southern California 10 

2 
173 

Obtain Additional Colorado River Water by Financing Conservation Investments for tbe lmoerial 

Irrigation District (1983) .. In Ibis report, EDF strenuously argued for tbe greater introduction of 

economic (or free market) principles into tbe management of western water resources tban had been 

tbe dominant paradigm up to that point-in-time. In very complete detail, we demonstrated tbat it was 

substantially less expensive for tbe Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to 

obtain any supplemental water supplies it might need by buying water (or by investing in conservation 

measures) under tbe control of tbe Jmperial Irrigation District (liD) (and by extension otbers similarly 

situated) tban it was to build expensive new publicly subsidized water projects. We also demonStrated 

tbat private entiepreneurs witbin liD (and elsewhere) could make substantial sums of money by selling 

conse!Ved water to MWD, witbout any loss of agricultural productivity whatever. 

Initially, although we were supported by such conservative publications as tbe Wall Street Journal, The 

Economist, and the San Diego Union, our report was greeted witb some skepticism by MWD, liD, and 

otber prominent water·leaders in California and in Washington, D.C. Eventually, however, by tbe end 

of tbe 1980s, a deal for a 100,000 acre foot annual transfer, nearly identical in broad ouu·ine to tbe one 

EDF proposed in 1983, had been concluded by MWD and liD. Witb tbis breaktbrough, and tbe nearly 

contemporan6\)us establishment of a State Water Bank by•tbe State Department of Water Resources, 

the era of water marketing had been launched in Cl\lifomia, and the introduction of free market and 

economically rational principles to water resources management in tbe state had established a 

significant beachhead. 

The 1980s also brought new controversies respecting CVP operations to tbe fore in tbe public's eye. 

The most notorious of tbese involved tbe Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, which at tbe time was 

also tbe terminus for the infamous partially-ronstructeu San Luis Drain. By early 1985 it was 

uncontested tbat tbe selenium-laden agricultural drainage return flows from WesUands Water District 

being conveyed in tbe Drain to KesterSon were causing massive bird deatbs and deformities. As a 

result, in mid-March of 1985, !ben-Interior Secretary i·Iodel and Regi~nal Director Houston of tbe 

Bureau of Reclamation announced tbe closure of tbe Drain, based on the Migratory Bird Treaty .Act 

and otber federal obligations to protect migratory waterfowl. EDF's response was to open discussions 

with WesUands regarding alternative means of handling drainage water, leading to a joint WestlandsEDF proposal in September 1985 for research on drainage solutions, which Congress approved in tbat 

year's Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Onfortunately, that initiative came to naught, as it was 

killed by the Interipr Department early the next year on a legal technicality. 

Otber EDF water initiatives in the 1980s include<! our attempted intervention in a lawsuit on behalf of 

Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who at the time was engaged in a controversy with Westlanqs 

over t11e St:ope of the Uniled "States' water commitments to that district; our participation in t11e 

sc:minal consensus-based Coordinated Operation Agreement legislation of 1986; our collaboration with 

!ben-Representative Pashayan in tbe defeat of a bill sponsored by Representative Coelho to commit a 

new Bureau water supply ·to Ute Pieasant Valley Water District (an i!fea uominated by one large 
174 

landowner, the Chevron Company); and a formal -agreement concluded with the Berrenda Mesa Water 

District and its leading landowner, the Blackwell Land Company, headed in California by Mr. Ronald 

Khachigian, to promote water marketing by local districts within the service area of the Kern County 

Water Agency. 

As the decade turned, EDF also became active on water issues with various groups representing big 

business in California, notably the Bay Area Economic Forum and the California Business Roundtable. 

During this period, the Bay Area Economic Forum published several studies, on its own and ih 

collaboration with the Metropolitan Water District, which touted the importance of water marketing 

and water transfers and assessed their benefits and costs. EDF played a consultative role on these 

studies. Similarly, the Business· Rountl{,able, led by high-ranking executives from, among other 

corporations, the Bank of Ameri~. Wells Fargo Bank, the Transamerica Corporation, Southern 

California Edison, and the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., published a set of principles which also 

endorsed water marketing as the touchstone for reform of water resource policy in California. 

All this and much more provided the backdrop for the deliberations that led ultimately to the passage 

of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA). From EDF's point-of-view, the 

CVP had for much too long caused substantial environmental damage, while delivering massive 

amounts of heavily subsidized water and power. Cost recovery to the federal taxpayers had been 

minimal, while public environmental resources Were in precipitous decline. From the point-of-view of 

various business and urban organizations, the CVP, as the largest water project in California, was the 

most significant block to a true water market in the state. Indeed, perhaps most important, MWD saw 

the prohibition of CVP water marketing as a huge obstacle in the way of its obtaining access to the 

largest single source of water in the State of California, the CVP. For over 50 years, the CVP had 

been the exclusive province of a select group of contractor beneficiaries, nearly all within the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, serving almost exclusively an agricultural clientele. Delivery of 

CVP water over the Tehachapi Mountains to Southern California, where three-fifths of the state's 

residents live, was out of the question. 

The stage was thus set for a historic broad-based coalition to form, including not just representativeS 

of environmental groups, big business, and urban water agencies, but Native American groups, 

waterfowl enthusiasts and duck hunters, sport and commercial fishermen, and family farmers. What 

resulted was the CVPIA, passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Bush on 

October 30, 1992. 

With the passage of the CVPIA, the CVP became more environmentally sensitive. It embraced water 

marketing. And it expanded its basic constituency to include not only its historic beneficiaries but" the 

wide range of interests impacted by the operations of California's largest water project. 
175 

Having said all this, however, Jet me be quick to note that while it is true that the CVPIA's passage 

may have been spurred by an urban-business-environmentalist coalition, it also was more than fair to 

the agricultural constituencies who. had long been U1e CVP's prime beneficiaries. At the time 1he 

CVPIA was being debated, the complaints heard loudest from the agricultural contractors of the CVP 

involved the lack of certainty in CVP contracts, especially those surrounding CVP contract renewal. 

In response, the CVPIA established ftrm rules for long-term contract renewals. 

The second loudest set of complaints from the CVP contractors involved their fear.! of an open-ended 

potential liability for meeting apparently insatiable environmenlal water demands. In response, the 

CVPIA established what the direct environmenlal water contributions of the CVP would be, including 

an 800,000 acre fool annual dedication of CVP yield to fiShery restoration, a firm-up of state and 

federal refuge water supplies, and a confirmation of minimum releases to the Trinity River. 

Otherwise, however, the Act left to a system of~ environmenlal water acquisitions and 

investments in environmenlally-oriented hardware the job of meeting the Act's environmenlal 

objectives. 

Third, the CVPIA also produced a potentially huge economic benefit to the farmer.! who make up the 

CVP's core constituency by establishing the right not just of the water district contractors but of their 

farmer constituents voluntarily to transfer federal water at a profit. In a partial offSet for this new 

right and economic benefit, the CVPIA did slightly reduce the contractors' historic subsidies by 

increasing the cost of the water and P<>wer sold by the CVP, notably raising base annual CVP 

agricultural water prices by $6/acre foot and urban· water prices by $11/acre foot (both indexed to 1992 

price levels). The revenues this genemted were then dedicated, along witll other increased revenues, to 

a CVP Restoration Fund whose overriding purpose is to help the CVP meet its Congressionally• 

mandated environmenlal objectives, as noted above, through ·the use of voluntary water acquisitions 

and other non-coercive means. 

The CVPIA was the product of two years of intense legislative maneuvering and fOmpromise. 

personal!)\ had the privilege of being an active participant in the deliberations which led to the bill's 

passage. Indeed, during one crucial week in that history, a key representative of tile CVP contractors 

and I were loosely authorized by then-slalemated legislators and olir respective constituencies to 

explore possible avenues for bridging the gaps which divided our respective camps. On June 15, 

1992, we released a joint legislative draft for open consideration by all involved parties. Regrelfully, 

my CVP contractor counterpart was not permitted to join me in explaining the contents of that effort 

at a Congressional briefing scheduled for the next day, June 16. As a result, any momentum for an 

open comprehensive legislative coalition effort where the aliected interests were actively involved in a 

cooperative spirit disappeared. Nevertheless, many of the concepts embedded in thf infamous 

Somach-Graff draft legislation did survive in Ute CVPIA as passed. Moreover, the interests uf the 

CVP contractors were actively considered and incorporated in the final version of the CVPIA, which 

ultimately passed tile 102nd Congress. 

5 
176 

I admittedly have gone to unusual lengths to explain this history of consensus efforts and negotiations 

leading to the passage of the CVPIA. 1 have done so because I thought it essential to convey 1o this 

subcommittee and others the point that the CVPIA is a statute which accommodates the interests of ill. 

·the involved constituencies. Moreover, EDF, from the very first testimony we wrote on what became 

the CVPIA, emphasized that the interests of the historic beneficiaries had to be accounted for. 

On the other hand, let me be clear about the current efforts of the CVP cuntractors to reopen the 

CVPIA compromise and to attempt to unscramble the "deal" which underlies its passage. This effort 

not only will undermine an excellent bill in its own right but many other efforts now underway in the 

state of California to move all the main constituencies in a positive direction orienled toward solving 

old water problems, not creating new ones. 

Approximately one year ago, for eltample, my colleague David Yardas convened a group which has 

come to be known as the C'VP Restoration Fund Roundtable. This Roundtable now consists of a wide 

variety of groups representing diverse agricultural, urban, business, power, and environmental 

constituencies. For the last eleven montbs, even in the midst of heavy contention over other, closely 

related, issues, the Roundtable has developed consensus-based recommefldalions for the funding of 

CVP restoration-oriented projects and for the management of the Restoration Fund. It also has 

provided a relatively "safe" forum for the responsible federal agencies (and their state counterparts) to 

discuss openly their restoration concepts and agendas. 

A second, more widely noted, consensus effort in which EDF also played a significant role, 

culminated in the celebrated Bay/Delta Accord of December 15, 1994. This agreement settled the 

water quality standard and Endangered Species Act compliance obligations of the CVP (and the State 

Water Project) for the three-year life of the Accord and sent out all its signers, agencies and 

stakeholders alike, to build on that agreement in such diverse areas as proje<.-"1 operations, state 

restoration funding, water rights implementation, and long-term Bay/Delta planning. 

Unfortunately, the word processors developing the Bay/Delta Accurd had hardly stopped whirring and 

the. news media proclamations heralding the Accord had hardly been circulated before the CVP 

contractors launched their initial efforts to undo the CVPIA, one of the Accord's crucial building 

blocks. In the intervening seven months, this effort, along with the companion effort of some, but 

fortunately not all, of the same CVP contractors to "take over" the CVP from federal control, has done 

much to undermine the fragile consensus established in the Bay/Delta Accord. 

Environmental organizations have probably spent at least twice the lime and effon to defeat the CVP 

contractors' initiatives as on the consensus-oriented implementation of the Accord or CVP Restoration 

Fund. Likewise, interest among agricultural constituencies in consensus-oriented processes has faded 

6 
177 

as well. The long-tenn Bay/Delta process, for example, was supposed to have published its initial 

recommendations by the end of 1995. It now will be lucky to have issued them by the end of 1996. 

What the CVP conttacloiS, now supported by the Chairman of this subcommittee, have done is to 

introduce a bill which seeks only to improve their position vis-a-vis others affected by the CVP, 

especially those who have environmental concerns. It doesn't even make any pretense about being a 

consensus bill or about addressing the interests of all Californians. As the allached critique 

demonstrates, the bill is all "take" and no "give." It may serve the narrow interests of a few CVP 

contractors, but it does not address the real future needs either of Calitornia's overall economy or of 

its environment. 

Accordingly, the only signal we in the environmental community can take from this situation is that 

tbe contractors are spoiling for a fight It is not a fight we sought, but it is one in which we 

necessarily must engage. Hopefully, progress in other more consensus-oriented arenas will not be an 

innocent casualty of the war that has now begun. Realistically, however, it is clear to me, as I have 

already stated, that the prospects for building positively on the consensus developed last December 

will continue to get bleaker the longer that we are forced to fight a rear·guard action here in 

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Chainnan, thank you again for giving EDF and me personaUy the opportunity to testify, knowing 

that we would necessarily be compelled to oppose your bill. It is one of the great hallmarks of our 

political system that we allow, indeed encmuage, debate on the important issues which engage us. 

Hopefully, the debate in which we are now engaged will lead us to a better CVP for all who depend 

on it for their livelihood and sustenance, be they farmers, city residents, or wild creatures. 
178 

Environmental Defense F11nd July 18, 1995 

An Initial Summary and Critique of Proposed Amendments to Title 34 of P.L. 102-575, 

tile Centml Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 

The following comments, provided roughly in bill order, are based upon EDF's initial review of H.R. 

1906, the Central Valley Project Refonn Act of 1995, as introduced on June 21, 1995. In sum, these 

amendments would: 

• promote significant increases in the CVP's consumptive water use commitments 

at the direct expense of the fish and wildlife resources adversely impacted by CVP 

operations and development 

• frustrate and impede the use of voluntary water transfers as a crucial water 

management tool for California's future 

• perpetuate long-standing water use subsidies for CVP irrigation contractors and 

impose significant 11ew costs on federal taxpayers 

• eviscerate restoration goals for salmon, steelhead trout, and other anadromous 

fish, severely frustrate their attainment for state and federal refuges and wildlife habitat 

areas, and provide for federal pre-emption of state instream flow protection laws 

• reduce, significantly and permanently, CVP Restoration Fund revenues, distort 

Restoration Fund expendi,'ilre priorities in favor of "brick and mortar" style fixes, and shift 

an ever-greater share of restoration costs to CVP power customers 

• destroy the "reasonable balance" finally provided by the CVPIA among the 

Project's longstanding irrigation clients and other California interests, including power 

customers, urban water users, and long-neglected flsh and wildlife resources 

In addition, H.R. 1906 would undermine, directly and indirectly, the foundation upon which the December 

15, 1994 Principles for Agreement 011 Bay-Delta Sumdards are based. For these reasons, and for the many 

additional reasons set forth below, EDF--as a signatory to the Bay/Delta Accord, and on bellalf of its 

250,000 members nationwide-~ H.R. 1906. 

A-1 
179 

NEW CONTRACfS Removes existing limitations on new contracts (above and beyond the many 

compromise exceptions that are already part of the CVPlA) subject only to completion of •appropriate 

environmental review" and a Secretarial determination that there is "sufficient water to meet existing 

contractual and legal obligations of the Secretary relative to the Cenlral Valley Project" 

Commems: If there's enough CVP water to meet~ contractual commitment~, why do existing 

environmental commitment~ cause so many apparent problems for current CVP contractors? Why 

shouldn't voluntary water transfers (as promoted by lhe CVPIA, but as frustrated by lhese amendments) 

be the principal means for meeting new water-use demands? Why should J!!!Y additional CVP water be 

sold at a loss to federal taxpayers? Note also that lhe Secretary's "legal obligations" to public 

environmental resources will be substantially more difficult to meet should these proposed amendments 

become law. 

RENEWALS Requires, upon request, the renewal of "any existing long term repayment or water service 

contracts" for successive periods of 25 years each, in perpetuity, Validates all pre-CVPIA renewals in 

their entirety, irrespective of financial, environmental, or other impacts, Eliminates incentive provisions 

for early contract renewals. 

Comments: Abrogates a fundamental compromise of the CVPIA Provides no assurance that the terms 

and conditions of all such perpetual renewals would not result (as has historically been the case) in huge 

taxpayer losses and sustained environmental damage. Elimination of early-renewal incentives perpetuates 

taxpayer subsidies and moves away, not towards, free-market principles. (According to data supplied by 

Sntith-Barney, Inc, on behalf of lhe CVP Aulhority, more than 1,215,200 acre-feet of CVP contract 

deliveries will be made at rates which make no contribution to capital recovery lhrough at least 2004.) 

Eliminates, directly or indirectly, a signitlcant source of Restoration Fund receipts. (Losses could involve 

from $2-12 million per year in non-renewal surcharges after 1997 for the 1.33 MAF of CVP irrigation 

contracts scheduled to expire between 2004 and 2008, and/or up to $7 million in tiered-rate receipts should 

those same contracts be renewed prior thereto. Note: all estimates are based on October 1992 price 

levels.) 

WATER TRANSFERS Imposes water district control and de-facto veto authority over all voluntary, 

user-initiated transfers of CVP water except for transfers, exchanges, or banking arrangements "which 

could have been conducted" prior to enactment of Ute CVPIA (emphasis added). Waives the t:olleclion 

of $2.5/ AF surcharges for water transferred off-Project when rights of first refusal are exercised. 

Comme111s: District veto aulhority over all voluntary, user-initiated transfers will disoourage transfers of 

CVP water in response to changing State-wide needs, and will abrogate a fundamental compromise of the 

CVPIA. The exception for so-called "historic" transfers would apply wilhoy! limitation as to fmanciaJ, 

environmental, third-party, or other effects, even if such transfers bad never historically occurred. The 

implied waiver of off-Project surcharges will result in a long-term loss of Restoration Fund income--e.g,, 

$10,000,000 in any year in which rights of first refusal are exercised against only 400,000 AF/year of 

proposed off-Project transfers of CVP water. 

WATER PRICING Eliminates tiered water rates, under which 80 percent of a contractor's CVP water 

is provided interest-free with only the last 10 percent provided at so-called "full cost" rates, 

Comments: Described by the CVPWA and others as "punilive," this provision of the CVPIA--anolher 

fundamental compromise--actually locked-in historic imerest subsidies for a full 80 percent of lhe 

A-2 
180 

contractors' CVP supply. Removes an important voluntary water conservation incentive. Eliminates a 

significant long-term source of Restoration Fund income and/or supplemental water--up 10 $16 million 

annually, and/or up to 385,()(X} AF of conserved CVP water--depending on the pace of contract renewals 

as well as actual yearly demands for CVP water. 

WATER CONSERVATION Imposes vague but potentially significant hurdles in the development of 

meaningful conservation criteria and guidelines for CVP water. Removes any remaining link between 

water conservation plans and the findings and recommendations of the final report of the Kestersoninspired federal-state San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. Affirms that contractors alone shall benefit 

"in a manner consistent with State law" from CVI' water conserved pursuant 10 an appreved conservation 

plan {including de-faciO approvals after a 90-day period). 

Comments: Entirely missing from these provisions is any recognition of the fact that the taxpaying public 

has an ongoing, substantive interest in the disposition and use of CVP water (including conserved water). 

Thus, if other aspects of the CVPIA are modified as proposed herein, more (as opposed to less) public 

scrutiny of and benefit from contractor-based water conservation programs would be warranted. The 

proposed deletion of all references 10 the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program makes a mockery of the 

$80-plus million expended by taxpayers to address the problems at Kesterson Reservoir and 10 assess and 

document the benefits of water conservation and source reduction as priority and cost-effective strategies 

for solving agricultural drainage problems throughout the San Joaquin Valley. 

FULFILLMENT OF PURPOSES Provides that the mere pursuit of CVPIA authorized prograDls and 

activities shall be deemed to fulfill the mitigation, protection, restoration, and enhancement provisions and 

purposes of the CVPIA. 

Comments: This would remove any requirement for meaningful or substantive accomplishment as a 

measure of fulfilling the CVP's fish and wildlife purposes. (Does the Secretary's "pursuit' of these 

programs since October 1992 mean that, if H.R. 1906 is enacted, the job is already done?) It would also 

undermine the State's recentlycadopted Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which requires, among 

other provisions, "prompt and efficient actions ... to implement" the CVPIA's fiShery restoration objectives 

(emphasis added). 

FISHERY RESTORATION Eliminates the Act's fishery restoration goals and program in favor of the 

State of California's goal of doubling salmon and steelhead production only. Gives statutory priority to 

CVPIA-aulhorized structural fixes. Eliminates a program under which the Secretary would assisi the state 

in restoring the Bay/Delta striped bass fishery. 

Comments: While the CVPIA's tishery restoration objectives are a clear embrace of existing State policy, 

the Act made those goals attainable (in the face of previous State inaction) as well as ecologically sound 

by providing the funding and the authority needed to achieve a sustainable doubling in the natural 

production of anadromous ftsh. As proposed herein, priority would be given 10 CVPIA-aulhorized 

structural fixes, irrespective of their scientific or biological merit In addition, such a "narrowing" of 

purposes and objectives moves away from the goals of broad-based ecosystem restoration as is finally 

being pursued in earnest in the Bay/Delta Accord implementation process. 

DEDICATED YIELD Re-defines the 800,()(X} acre-feet of CVP yield dedicated 10 fishery restoration 

purposes by (I) eliminating its primary purpose (i.e., the above doubling goal), (2) substituting "reserved 

water" for "dedicated yield," (3) removing all references to impacts on CVP delivery capability, (4) 

A-3 
181 

requ:iring the diversion and re-use of such water for consumptive puqx)ses ' to the fullest extent possible,' 

(5) authorizing reductions of up to 200,000 AF whenever CVP agriCultural deliveries are reduced for any 

reason, (6) barring the use of such water to increase Delta outflows beyond those amoii!IIS required by 

other existing laws, and (7) imposing the crediting provisions of. the Bay/Delta Accord as a ,statutory 

requirement of the CVPIA. 

Comments: Taken together, the above provisions eviscerate the CVPIA's 800,000 acre 'feet of 'dedicated 

yield" as a meaningful tool for pro-active fishery restoration. (Data provided by the CVP Authority 

indicate that contractor deliveries of CVP water are projected to increase by more than 1,459,400 AF 

annually between 1995 and 2030. Could this be why it is so important to "recapture• the environment's 

dedicated but minority share of CVP supplies?) Selective application of the "crediting" provisions of the 

Bay/Delta Accord also ignores the many other elements of that comprehensive Agreement that made such 

crediting appropriate for its three-year life. Also, if the CVP can be operated so that water can be "reused" after contributing to fishery needs, why wouldn't it be OJ'Ilrated that way i~ any case? 

TRINITY RIVER Imposes new rulemaking requirements which must be satisfied prior to the 

implementation of any improved instream releases to the Trinity River. Requires that any such 

improvements must include unspecified variances "to take into account differing hydrologic and reservoir 

storage conditions." · 

Comments: These amendments would establish a new set of hurdles to realization of the fishery restoration 

objectives for the Trinity River, as well as fulfillment of the Secretary's Indian Trust obligations, as 

required by P .L. 98-541 more than 10 years ago. · · 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Eliminates a program to investigate whether "reasonable, prudent, and feasible" 

options may exist for the restoration of fisheries in the San Joaquin River and throughout the San Joaquin. 

River basin. Provides for federal preemption of any assocuited instream releases below Friant Dam, and 

imposes a revisionist history on the efforts and intentions of prior Congresses. Adds a long list of ne\vly 

authorized projects of uncertain source or benefit. 

Comments: These·amendments override a carefully-crafted compromise involving virtually all parties of 

interest. They would also create a new priority for the use of Restoration. Funds for projects. of 

questionable merit or benefit, and would eliminate as a matter of federal law important flexibility under 

existing state law or as part of current efforts to achieve a long ~rrn resolution of.Bay/Delta problems. 

FRIANT CONTRIBUTIONS Caps Friant Division surcharges provided in lieu of releases below Friant 

Dam at $6 million per year, or at $4.00/Al' for Class 1 water and up to 50% of Class 2 water, 

Comments: These amendments would further reduce the Bay/Delta contributions of Friant Division 

contractors (who export;.. much as 2,300,000 AF annually from the Bay/Delta system). In wet years, wiit 

charges would drop to as little as $2.60/AF ($6m/2.3MAF). In dry years, total .collections would drop to 

as little as $2.2 million (540kaf*$4/AF) in direct violation of the amendment itself. Further, by imposing 

such caps, these amendmentS eliminate any pretense that Friant in-lieu contributions will· keep pace with 

inflation (unlike every other CVPIA-authorized surcharge). Depending on water year type and the year 

in question, these provisions will result in a loss of Restoration Fund income of $2-14 millioli/year. 

REFUGE WATER Requires a re-investigation of water supply needs for state and federal refuges. 

Mandates within one year construction or acquisition of new conveyance and pumping. capacity (including 

A-4 
182 

in- anti through-Delta facilities) as needed "to minimize possible adverse impacts upon [CVP) water 

contractors." Shifts all costs associated with the provision of baseline water supplies from CVP 

beneficiaries (as partial mitigation for CVP impacts) to federal taXpayers. 

Comments: Allows for potentially-unlimited reductions in "firm" refuge deliveries through inappropriate 

application of agriculturid best management practices, with any "conserved" water accruing to the benefit 

of other CVP contractors (compare to Water Conservation provisions, below.) Requires cosily and 

unrealistic taXpayer-funded infrastructure capacity investments. Requires water supply reductions for any 

teason, and at any time, that CVP irrigation supplies are also reduced. 

RESTORATION FUND Reduces Restoration Fund receipts by an estimated $5-30 million per year, 

increasing with time (see the above comments on wntract renewals, water transfern, water pricing, and 

Friant contributions). Prohibits collection of Restoration Fund surcharges for the storage or conveyance 

of non-project water (e.g., "surplus" flood flows or Warren Act water). Eliminates assured Restoration 

Fund surcharge income in FY98 and beyond. Retains antiquated "ability to pay" limitations on 

Restoration Fund collections while removing all consideration of benefits provided through CVPIA· 

authorized water marketing, assured renewals, etc. 

Depletes available balances by requiring payments to be made to the State of California for its San Joaquin 

River Management Program activities. Eliminates the required apportionment of available funds into 

"habitat" (2/3) and •structural" (113) components. Adds a requirement that supplemental water may ordy 

be acquired "by purchase" even if other alternatives can be used to acquire water voluntarily. 

Commellts: neduced collections impose new but hidden costs on CVP power customers, changes the 

balance of collections between various project components and functions, and may require budgetary 

offsets of $30 millioll/year or more. The exclusion of "surplus" or Warren Act water ignores the fact that 

the storage and conveyance of non-Project water can and often does result in the same environmental 

impacts as the storage and conv:>yance of Project water. Modified "ability to pay" provisions continue 

to raise serious questions in light of the contractors' concurrent efforts and apparent "ability to buy" the 

Project itself. 

Required payments to the State raise serious concerns given the State's failure to meet its commitments 

to provide cost share funding for CVPIA-authorized projects and programs. Elimination of the Fund's 

apportionment provisions will remove any assurance that Restoration Fund balances will be available when 

and in the amounts needed for supplemental water acquisitions (a key feature of the CVPIA as enacted). 

Limiting supplemental acquisitions to purchased water will also eliminate acquisitions through other 

voluntary methods (e.g., incentive-based pricing programs) and as part of the public's rightful share of 

water "developed" through, e.g., the $80 million Shasta Temperature Control Device. 

YIELD INCREASE Gives new priority to completion of a study to replace the CVP yield (or water) 

dedicated (or reserved) for fish and wildlife purposes by the CVPIA in order to satisfy, "without 

limitation," the Secretary.'s contractual obligations. Further burdens the CVP with a statutory requirement 

to provide an alternative water supply for the Stockton East aml Central San Joaquin Water Districts "at 

no impact to other CVP contractorn" and with 75 percent of costs to be borne by federal taxpayers. 

Comments: The above yield-increase study is nearly complete, with a draft for public review already 

released. (Missing from these amendments is any commitment on the part of Project beneficiaries to pay 

for any such increase.) See also the above comments on "New Contracts." 

A-5 
183 

TESTIMONY 

BY 

JEFF KERRY 

VICE PRESIDENT 

GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT 

AND 

FIRST SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

CALIFORNIA WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

ON 

H.R.1906 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT REFORM ACT OF 1995 
184 

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, thank you for 

providing me with the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R 1906, the Central 

Valley Project Reform Act of 1995. I am Jeff Kerry, the Vice President of the Grassland 

Water District, but I also serve as First Senior Vice President of the California Waterfowl 

Association. And, I am also a landowner in the Grassland Resource Conservation 

District. I am testifying today on behalf of the Grassland Water District, the Califor:nia 

Waterfowl Association, the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, the Oregon Waterfowl 

and Wetlands Association, and the Alaska Waterfowl Association. Accompanying me 

today are Dave Widell of the Grassland Water District and Bill Gaines of the California 

Waterfowl Association. 

Broadly speaking, our organizations believe that we are speaking on behalf of all 

the wetland, waterfowl and sporting interests up and down the Pacific Flyway. 

Moreover, I would like to emphasize that we are testifying only with respect to the impact 

of H.R 1906 on these interests and the sportsmen and women who support these 

interests. We do not presume to speak to the host of other issues that will be considered 

today and in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, before talking specifically about H.R. 1906, I would like to take a 

few minutes to describe the Grassland Water District to you. The 0rganizations on whose 

behalf! am testifYing today believe that the Grassland Water District offers a unique 

perspective on the management of Central Valley water. We are not in any "camp." 

We share some of the concerns of the agricultural water contractors because, like them, 

Grassland Water District also is a water contractor. But we also share some of the 

concerns of environmental and fishery interests because, like them, we also need to 

preserve habitat. 

As I previously stated, I serve as Vice President of the Grassland Water District, 

but I also am, like thousands of others, a landowner within the Grassland Ecological area 

--California's largest remaining wetlands complex. 1 own and maintain 288 acres which 

is about the average size of a landholding within the Grasslands. In the aggregate, private 

land makes up over 70 percent of the total Grassland acreage. Grassland landowners, like 

me, are unique among all of the landowners receiving water through the Central Valley 

Project because we do not farm crops or livestock, we farm ducks. To do that, we need 

wetlands. 

1 know there is an ongoing debate in Congress about what constitutes a wetland, 

and we follow that debate very closely. But for our purposes in the Central Valley and the 

Pacific Flyway, we need not engage in technical debates about what is a wetland. Simply 

stated, in order to provide viable wetland habitat we need to manage these lands by 

applying water according to specific water management regimes. If sufficient land and 

water is not available in the Central Valley than the ducks will either die or return to their 

nesting areas in poor shape causing a direct and negative impact on nesting success. This 

2 
186 

impact on Central Valley wetlands will impact waterfowl populations from Alaska to 

Mexico, and throughout the Pacific Flyway. 

At one time, Mr. Chairman, the California Central Valley provided over four 

million acres of wetlands for migratory waterfowl. We are down to less than one-tenth of 

that today. The 350,000 acres of Central Valley wetlands that remain provide vital 

wintering and nesting habitat for sixty percent of our Pacific flyway waterfowl which in 

turn represents over twenty percent of the entire continental U.S. waterfowl population. 

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the Grasslands represents over one-third of the remaining 

Central Valley wetlands. Today, due to substantial changes in California's natural 

hydrology almost all of the Central Valley wetlands and the Grasslands are "managed 

wetlands;" meaning that water must be applied artificiallv and intentionally to the land 

during specific times of the year to create marsh vegetauon. Put another way, in any 

given year, the quantity and quality of Central Valley wetlands is almost entirely 

dependent upon the water supplies made available from the Central Valley Project for 

hands-on wetland management. 

Mr. Chairman, I said in the beginning of my testimony that we are not a member 

of any "camp." We maintain that position not just here in a public hearing, but also in 

private meetings. At various times, I think that members of the various Central Valley 

water "camps" have been disappointed with us, and perhaps even a little angry. I hope 

that suggests that we are succeeding in maintaining our independence. I also said that we 

believe we can offer a unique perspective on Central Valley water management, and I 

would like to explain what I meant. Much of the debate over the allocation of Central 

Valley water is theoretical with each side seeking to outbid the other in predicting terrible 

consequences if various actions do not take place. 

The waterfowl community wants to avoid making predictions; we prefer to stick 

with historical fact. As you know, most of the water applied to the Grasslands between 

the 1960's and 1985 was agricultural drain water contaminated by selenium, boron, silt 

and other pollutants which eventually lead to the Kesterson disaster. In the 1993-94 water 

year, however, the Grassland wetlands and refuges in the San Joaquin Valley received 

safe and adequate water supplies in the summer for the first time in twenty years as a 

result ofCVPIA. The results were far more dramatic than anyone predicted. More than 

26,000 acres were irrigated compared to an average irrigation of 4,000 acres over the 

previous seven years. These critical summer irrigations increased waterfowl food 

production by an estimated 300 percent. On the private landholdings within the 

Grasslands, 49.5 million pounds of waterfowl food- or 14.5 percent of the total annual 

food requirements for Central Valley waterfowl • was produced in the 1993-94 water 

year. That compares to only 8.5 percent of production in the 1992-93 water year. Most 

important, the number of birds visiting these lands increased from 38,535 to 115,000 over 

the same period. 
186 

Mr. Chairman, we believe that CVPIA water supplies are the primary reason for 

the Central Valley waterfowl and wetland resurgence. I would like to clarify why we 

think that is so. For a nwnber of years, waterfowl migrating through the Central Valley 

have been forced to survive, if they survived at all, on unhealthy and unsafe water and 

poor quality habitat. The Pacific Flyway bird population fluctuates from year to year due 

to a variety of factors. Regardless of the waterfowl population, however, it has become 

increasingly difficult for the Central Valley to accommodate the migration. The 1993-94 

deliveries changed the situation on the ground, as demonstrated by the fact that in the 

Grasslands alone, three times as many birds were able to utilize safe and healthy habitat 

as a direct result of CVPIA water supplies. 

CVPIA provides about 3,000 additional acres of early fall habitat from August I 

to September 15. CVPJA is also providing finn water to an additional4,500 acres of 

habitat in the GRCD that prior to CVPIA relied on operational spills and/or wells. 

Improved water level management on 20,000 acres also is provided by CVPIA. 

Historically, pond levels were four to six inches deeper than recent years. Under CVPIA, 

a more constant source of water is available to allow shallower water level management 

and better habitat for more species of wildlife, especially shorebirds and green-winged 

teal. An average of20,000 more wintering shorebirds (a 25% increase) use post-CVPIA 

wetlands in tlte Grasslands than pre-CVPIA wetlands. 

Spring and summer wetland irrigation increases plant biomass two to three times, 

increases plant diversity, and increases seed production for wintering waterbirds. From 

1986 to 1992 between zero and 8,000 acres were irrigated for an average of about 4, 000 

acres per year. Even though the full potential of CVPIA is yet to be realized, in 1993 

26,000 acres were irrigated. Less water was available in 1994, yet 14,200 acres were 

irrigated. Based on these numbers of pre-and-post-CVPIA water for irrigation, four times 

more habitat has been enhanced (from 4,000 to 16,000 acres). This nwnber will continue 

to increase over the next seven years to about 40,000 acres of enhanced wetland habitat. 

Improved water supplies and the resulting increase in habitat quality and quantity 

appears to have reduced disease outbreaks. Avian cholera outbreaks in the winters of 

1991 and I 992 followed two years of drought and poor habitat conditions in the 

Grasslands. Since implementation of CVPIA in the spring of 1993, irrigations to 

improve wetland habitat, and ideal flooding conditions, no significant avian cholera 

outbreaks have been noted in 1993, 1994, or 1995 in the GRCD. 

Mr. Chairman, The habitat improvements in the Central Valley cannot be 

attributed to changes occurring elsewhere in the Pacific Flyway. For example, breeding 

conditions in Canada, although improved during the last two years, followed II years of 

drought that severely decimated nesting conditions. Several years of good conditions are 

needed to bring waterfowl populations back to population objectives set by the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. If a farmer is able to increase the amount of 

4 
187 

crop that he can plant in any given year, by the end ofhis season, his overall crop yield 

will have increased. The same holds true for wetlands. Like water supplies results in 

increased habitat acreage which results in increased bird use and increased wetland food 

production. Although these improvements will eventually lead to increased Pacific 

Flyway waterfowl populations, with only 3 years of implementation under our belt, our 

discussion of habitat improvements has nothing to do with overall populations, but rather, 

the fact that the existing population has access to much better and more suitable habitat 

and increased food supplies, which results in the birds returning to the breeding grounds 

in much better condition. Although, increased Pacific Flyway waterfowl numbers cannot, 

at the moment, be attributed to CVPIA water supplies; the use of reestablished natural 

habitat by Pacific Flyway waterfowl has increased sharply. This is largely due to 

waterfowls' preference for natural habitat with high food values instead of poor quality 

habitat substitutes, such as sewage treatment facilities and agricuiture evaporation ponds 

that migratory birds have increasingly been forced to use as natural habitats have declined 

in significance. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I do not know how many of 

you are duck hunters. We are an unusual breed. We love to wake up at 4 am, get dressed 

in the dark, drive for an hour or two, and sit in the wet and the cold for five hours at a 

stretch. Probably, the majority of Americans would even think that your job as a 

Congressman is better than what we love to do. Most of us can only do it eight or ten 

times a year in the late fall and early winter, but we spend the rest of the year talking to 

each other about the next season and telling stories about the last season. Although we 

hunt for only a few days a year, our privately owned lands provide year round habitat for 

hundreds of other species of v.'ildlife, and we invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

the management of this habitat 

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, in recent years, it has been getting harder and harder for 

LIS to hunt Less water meant fewer ducks. With fewer ducks, bag limits have to be 

reduced. When bag limits are reduced fewer people are interested in hunting. This is a 

disturbing trend. Duck hunters are the original conservationists. We have imposed 

"taxes" upon ourselves in the form of surcharges on sporting equipment through the 

Pittman Robertson Act, and through state and federal duck stamp legislation- all of 

which generate critical funding for wetland restoration. As interest in duck hunting is 

reduced, so are these wetland funding streams. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act has been a significant and 

substantial benefit to waterfowl and to sporting interests in the State of California. We do 

not want to see the refuge provisions of the Act weakened, because we know they work. 

We have approached H.R. 1906 with what we believe is a narrow but critical set of 

principles which we have applied to the refuge and waterfowl provisions of the bill: 
188 

• First, administrative remedies should be exhausted prior to consideration of 

legislative changes to refuge and waterfowl provisions of existing Jaw. 

• Second, legislative changes to refuge and waterfowl provisions must be the product of 

a consensus among all refuge stakeholders in the Central Valley. 

• Third, management of watershed and refuges must not be weakened and, in some 

cases, must by improved. 

• Fourth, secure funding for habitat and refuge restoration enhancement and acquisition 

must be maintained and improved. 

We have reviewed H.R. 1906 through the prism of these principles and, in our 

opinion, several changes are needed to the bill as introduced to avoid particular hardships 

for habitat, refuges, and the private wetland landowner. We also want to point out that 

between the early drafts ofH.R. 1906 which we were given the opportunity to review and 

the final bill, significant improvements were made in the interests of habitat and refuges. 

In particular, early drafts would have eliminated the guaranteed floor of delivering at least 

seventy-five percent of contracted water. The waterfowl community considered this 

provision to be a substantial step backward. To their credit, the proponents of H.R. 1906 

eliminated this provision. 

Despite these improvements from earlier drafts of H.R. 1906, the waterfowl 

community believes that further changes are necessary. Today, I would like to discuss a 

few such improvements in detail, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1906 requires the Secretary to 

reduce water deliveries to Central Valley refuges and wildlife habitat areas by up to 

twenty-five percent whenever reductions are imposed on agricultural water service 

contractors. Unlike other provisions of H.R. 1906 which provide the Secretary with more 

management discretion, this provision provides him or her with less. The potential 

impact of a mandatory reduction could be devastating not just for California wetland, 

waterfowl and sporting interests but for the entire Pacific Flyway because, in a very real 

sense, this provision would work to make a bad situation worse. 

Mr. Chairman, the reduction of water envisioned in this provision would occur 

when water conditions in the Central Valley are very tight. The purpose of the provision 

is to require refuges to reduce water if the supply to the agricultural water service 

contractors is reduced. Mr. Chairman, the Grasslands are the neighbors of many water 

service contractors and some of our landowners are water service contractors themselves. 

We do not take lightly the impact of water reduction on our agricultural neighbors. 

However, the impact on refuges is, in most cases, far more serious than the impact on 

agriculture. With only five percent of California's wetlands remaining, every acre of 

Central Valley wetland must be intensely managed in an attempt to recreate the benefits 

6 
189 

of a larger, historic wetland base. To an extent, agriculture can plan around a water 

reduction. We cannot. In drought years, when this temporary reduction comes into play 

the maintenance of these refuge acres is of utmost importance. The ducks will come from 

the northern breeding areas whether we have adequate water or not. If we do not have 

water than the ducks will either die or return to their nesting areas in poor shape, causing 

a decline in nesting success and leading to a decline in the migratory bird population. 

'There are no planning alternatives. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we want to emphasize that we do not take the 

position that refuge water can never be reduced by twenty-five pereent regardless of the 

circumstances. We are not insisting upon a guarantee; rather, we are saying that the 

Secretary should have the discretion to provide wetland water above the seventy-five 

percent threshold if biologically justified. If a situation arises in which the risks to 

society are so great that the Secretary determines that refuge water delivery must be 

reduced temporarily, we believe this action may be justified. We cannot accept, however, 

a mechanical mandate that deprives the Secretary of making a sound scientific judgment 

about Central Valley wetlands and refuges. 

We also would propose another change to existing law Md to H.R. 1906 which 

we think will improve water management in the Central Valley. Under H.R 1906, water 

deliveries may be curtailed for any reason. Under current law, water deliveries may be 

curtailed for hydrological circumstances. However, current law does not define 

hydrological circumstances. We agree with the proponents of the legislation that the lack 

of a definition leaves too much discretion with the Secretary. Therefore, we believe that 

H.R. 1906 should be amended to include a definition of the hydrological circumstance for 

which water deliveries may be temporarily reduced. Such a definition should eliminate 

the possibility of a "regulatory drought" by tying water reduction for fish and wildlife to 

precipitation and runoff levels and, in the case of consecutive dry years, perhaps to 

carryover storage, as well. 

The third area of deep concern to us involves the future administration of the 

Central Valley refuge program. H.R. 1906 provides that the Secretary will be "deemed" 

to have met his or her legal obligations under the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act and the Central Valley Project Reform Act by "pursuing the programs and activities" 

of each Act. Mr. Chairman, we think this provision will do more to improve the habitat 

for Washington lawyers than for California ducks. We are not sure what pursuing a 

program means. And, we believe that "deeming" compliance substitutes intentions for 

actions, and efforts for results. We believe, as I know you do, in holding government 

employees accountable for their actions. In a similar vein, we would like to address the 

requirement of a new report on the accuracy of the "Dependable Water Supply." In 

particular, we believe that, should this report be revisited, it must be done in a manner 

which assures the credibility of the new report, and the scope of the report should be 

expanded somewhat to assure its,comprehensiveness. Perhaps most important, we urge 

7 
190 

you to put mechanisms in place to encourage implementation of the report's 

recommendations whether those recommendations encourage more or less water for 

refuges. 

An additional area of concern relates to the need f(lr all CVP water contractors to 

implement water conservation standards. As this section reads, this requirement would 

also impose these standards on private wetland landowners and refuges in the Central 

Valley. Although all water users should be using water vvisely, there is no recognition 

within this section that the management of wetland habitat is very different from the 

management of agricultural crops. We believe the criteria for water conservation on 

wetlands and refuges must be dealt with separately. or confusion will likely result in 

implementation of H.R. 1906 that would impair important optimwn management of 

Central Valley wetlands. 

The bill also directs the Secretary of Interior to construct or acquire water 

conveyance facilities and capacity from non-Federal sources. The waterfowl community 

supports this provision, but we believe that refuge and wildlife restoration should be 

given a priority with respect to any additional water that can be delivered as a result of 

additional capacity. The lack of clean and, direct authority to utilize fully non-Federal 

sources deprives the Secretary and, more importantly, the waterfowl habitat and refuges 

of much needed flexibility in meeting statutory and conservation objectives. 

The next area of H.R. 1906 which is of significant concern to us is the funding of 

the restoration fund. Secure funding for the delivery of this wetland water is absolutely 

essential to protecting refuges and wildlife. H.R. !906 makes the funding of the 

restoration fund more tenuous in two ways. The bill eliminates the requirement that the 

funding necessary to deliver these wetland water supplies be reimbursable and the 

eannarking of sixty-seven percent of the fund for habitat restoration, improvement and 

acquisition. Our commitment is to secure limding, not to the principle of making fund 

payments reimbursable. Unfortunately, we are not aware of a satisfactory alternative. 

H.R. 1906 would make replenishment of the fund subject to the appropriations process. 

In an era of ever tightening Federal budgets. this approach does not provide a secure 

funding alternative opening the possibility of a lack of wetland water even in a year when 

adequate water is available. And, the source of funds for restoration and protection is 

further attenuated by the elimination of the earmarking requirement. This would open the 

fund up for purposes other than restoration and acquisition. The combination of these two 

changes is, in our judgment. very dangerous to wetland. waterfowl and sporting interests. 

Mr. Chairman, earlier in my statement, l said that I did not know whether you or 

your colleagues were duck hunters. I must confess that I hope each of you is one. Out in 

California, we are pretty far away from Washington and most of the time we like it that 

way. But events take place here that have a very significant impact on our land and the 

wetlands and waterfowl we love. In thinking about this testimony and talking to friends, 
191 

we inevitably would end up saying to ourselves, "if any of the Congressmen and women 

are duck hunters, they will know how important it is to get water to the refuges and 

habitat." Frankly, we hope that we could get some or all of you out to the Grasslands 

while you are considering this legislation. I am confident that if you carne out to see the 

land, and see the wildlife you would understand why the changes to the legislation that 

we seek are so important to us. 

Thank you again for the honor of testifying, and I look forward to answering any 

questions that you might wish to ask. 

9 
Bi~year 

for salmon 

industry 

N. Coast season 

set to open amid 

huge catches 1J IOJUl DICIT AU: ........ 

~dal.ulmo«<tmllerstrt 

nulllls ~ laJle lllmlllmols:ahaon 

forBett!SI:Umelatllyeanoff!lle 

CalitorJII [Out 1\J I~ $US04 

~~10ft~ DOrtl Ia 8odqa BIJ Oil 

........ ,. By June 15, tOCIIfttrdll ftsiurntll Ud ludtd u milnalell 

SOO.illt--llotlleplrtmtiC ., FlY Ud Game re- pDIU.'btlvttJifcatcblora.a 

ellllre swon, N.IJ I to Stpt t5. is 

500,001 flli.Siwt!!l.tle:tucbtSt 

SWt)tl's ttlc) Jot tilt state was 

ltf,OGOctlooo .. Jhuwb!Je.JDOrl:s~are 

uvt.atllelr tlllrdlliSti:SDIL Ity 

Jaoel"lKfhldCIIJCIIIPcstialN lil,• tb.laoob on Cdfcnia. 

l\e lftrqt c:aldl fDr u etUn 

SQSOIIbabcMIIIJUOOmlmoe. 

·u'! m mvcb Wrter Chu Ril 

we.'~ l! Ud," sal4 2tlt Gr1dtr. 

dlr«toc ollbe PX!fic CODSI Ftdtf· 

aticn ol fiStermea's M.wcbtinns 

11 SIUIIIiJo. "II !Mkatcs ffe'rt 

~~·IIIIIUil . chlnoolllllmm 

catch(ll-) · 

, ..... 

••• 

--121 '; I " 1 

bK•a.ltlupsw1~~&."' 

ne ae'" b pd kif Hortb coasr li5btlll1el whO have C«n stnlt 

Su s.u-, ,.~, 

Salmon 

Uoliu<rl[rnl ,.,.A I 

lbl1olllntt<l!laa

1IPI17 npla1ed 10 pm

---1141om<e

-~~~~b1 ... 1U

--111111elll0 .

--.-oiEin

-·--

- • .,..u, _

stuoa 11001 tbe North 

Wle lilt - bepo 

..,t.b 01 SU F>lndxo, 11

BodcCo Bay -·· "'

Wed"""!· 

n.e:.rorttro~tlltft

........olfllariii

a>oat!eoillbet.beO>itsoo

~otaiiJ umted SUles to 

li'111ctJlc>latJOl ..... Sud

IIY!IJ O«UtJ II a COUll)' t

M4 J01lHant of lle Slm

creatures nrlmsalq oU 

- 

HIJUfSirUUUltblt

ol pOde tor liS iD CaiiJorW

111W Pve SCGt ~ 

~toe~D't•Jmuctalotdlem

lllloo,"GIIW..._ 

fortlna,oacet.be

15 lllmoD port. WOD1 b

~lfOIIIIds- oWSe

bet. OGIJ I ....,.. - 

oll-llldO!:oceltOI

Aillllllbtrflf--

<ql<do! .. -·ll• .. 

!!aylotlkOJ1t'II'IW

-~~~w111""

llldlryhoo("aldi,..VO

pre04<GC olllle Bodep Ba

trtOei'S WuttUoa losodlt

aid tlle rttteallonl\ ns

tave tlljoyed aood fi*IQ& 

., ... 

1k salmon. JMt or n.tc
1'1e-lro parravtuw p,,-.J,],.,.,, 

Da11id Allen 

Vl<'.·l'r._·~l(l('l\1 

}11Im c;rcL"1tvflle 

SnKI:ny 

PWas~ rt!ply to: 

M;:p_nJ!!~ 

I I I' I 1, llu~ ')ti'J 

~~~~~~.lit~>. CA ;Joi96(, 

T.-1: (·iiSl 332 SU80 

~-;,~ ( 11 ')) -~~~' 2722 

193 

.M>Ul~ rn.,...ni>TION 

II I'll. II••~ :HO 

~:1 (:nm;~<.l;o, CA ~)~OIH 

'l'd.(11SJ7'Jl>HI(I7 

1-;IJI: 1.-fJ'i) 7lh-16U7-.~' 

TIONS 

l::latum.Q!!kc 

II l'tl. Bm JH.~ 

1\kmlo;.,_iuu.CI\'J'i<il'rH 

'I d. 17!171 •J:~r-414~ 

hl:\' (707) ')_~7-2617 

stat .. ant of the 

W.F. HZ~?Itt>~ GI"Udt'l', ]''· 

E:>~~'<.'<.•lin· 1!11•:.-!<>r 

Nalbanl"l -~·- Rtlfjlhum 

lt:lbil:tl l.lir~·cu•r 

Gin H .\JJain 

N,,nhw,·~l lk)!iun~l D~r~·uo~r 

Mitc:bFarro 

Nor!hwesl kqricmal O![i~ 

II 1'.0. U<.1~ 11170 

EugL·nt._ OR <)744fkB7il 

J'd (":i<Dl ('18')-2!~)(' 

]•:tX:(')()3)(-jH{)-2';0<.'f 

PACIPIC COAST PEDERATIOK OP PISHERMBK'S ASSOCIATIONS 

to the 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE OR WATER ' POWER 

Raqardinq H.R. 1906 

Waehinqton, D.C. 

20 July 1995 

STEWAHDS OF TlW FlSHFl!lF.~ 
194 

l 

The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen • s Associations 

(PCFFA) welcomes this opportunity to provide written testimony on H.R. 1906 by Mr. Doolittle and other members from california's 

Central Valley. While PCFFA believes testimony delivered by one of its officers or staff personally to the Subcommittee would have 

had greater value in the deliberations on H.R. 1906, PCFFA does, 

however, appreciate Congressman Riggs' submittal of this written 

material on PCFFA's behalf. 

WHAT IS PCFFA? 

PCFFA is a non-profit trade organization, incorporated in 

California. Its main office is located in sausalito. PCFFA is an openly-run organization and its records are open to reasonable 

public review. Its membership includes 13 of the 15 marketing 

associations in California that represent commercial salmon 

fishermen, among others. PCFFA's 10 associate members also include 

salmon fishermen from California, including small boat operators 

and charter boat owners, as well as members from Oregon, Washington 

and Alaska. The marketing associations, which are the voting 

members on PCFFA' s board, are democratically-run organizations which elact a representative and alternate to represent them on PCFFA 1 s board. Those representatives annually elect the PCFFA 

officers and are responsible for the selection of executive staff. 

Although many outside of the fishing industry may not share PCFFA's 

views on one or more issues and may, indeed, wish to stifle those 

opinions they find provocative or offensive, PCFFA nevertheless 

represents the collective view of the majority of California's 

organized commercial salmon fleet. 

Although PCFFA represents a number of different types of 

fishing men and women through its member organizations, it is its 

representation of the salmon fishery that has led to its 

involvement in efforts to protect habitat and flows critical to the 

survival of these t:ish, including the reform the Central Valley 

Project (CVP). 

CALIFORNIA AND SALMON 

At the outset, let us remind non-coastal members, that salmon are not simply a fish found in Alaska or in net pens in Norway or Chile. The salmon fishery followed california's history since 

statehood. The fishery initially was developed by early settlers 

to feed the qold miners, although it earlier played an important 

role in the subsistence and commerce of coastal Indians from 

centrai CaH.fornia north. The fishery is one of the state's 

earliest industries: in fact, the first salmon cannery on the west 

coast was located near Sacramento. 
195 

2 

The importance ot the salmon fishery to the state should not be surprising. The Sacramento-San Joaquin river system, after all, 

is second only to the Columbia-Snake system in the lower 48 states in historic salmon production. Even today, the Sacramento, San 

Joaquin and their tributaries -- the Central Valley river system - - accounts for approximately 7!5\ ot the state's commercial and 

recreational salmon harvest and an estimated 50\ of Oregon's ocean catch. As late as 1988, salmon was California's most valuable 

fishery, accounting tor millions of dollars to coastal economias 

and thousands of jobs. And even though, king (chinook) salmon, 

the mainstay of california and oregon's salmon fishery, account for 

only a small part of overall world salmon production, troll-caught 

kings, which California has often led in the production of, have 

historically been the most valuable of all the species of salmon 

harvested. 

Without a doubt the single largest factor contributing to the 

decline of California's salmon resource, and tbe jobs and economies 

it has supported, has been the construction and operation of the 

f'ederal Central Valley Project. Shasta Dam on the Sacramento, 

Friant Dam on the San Joaquin, Folsom Darn on the American and the 

myriad of other federal dams on the tributaries have eliminated 

thousands of miles of spawning and nursery habitat. The California 

Advisory Committee on Salmon & Steelhead Trout reported that by the 

1970's the 6,000 miles of salmon spawning habitat in the Central 

Valley had been reduced to less than 500 miles. 

TAKINGS 

Not only did Shasta, Friant, Folsom and the other dams 

eliminate thousands of miles of Central Valley fish habitat, their 

operations further worsened conditions in the rest of the system 

that was not inundated by reservoirs. Flow from Friant was 

eliminated, leaving a stretch of the San Joaquin for approximately 

40 miles below the dam dry. This wiped out the san Joaquin apring- run salmon Which averaqed some 115,000 spawners annually and helped 

eupport the larc;Je Bay and Delta net fishery (accounting for a harvest of 300,000 to 500,000 fiah). There was not an Endangered 

Species Act in the late 1940's to save the San Joaquin spring-run, 

they became extinct. Within 10 years of the completion of Friant 

Dam the 100-year old Bay-Delta net fishery was qone and so were the 

jobs and economies it supported in towns such as Pittllilburg and 

Antioch. Had it not been for the efforts of state Senator George 

Miller, these fishermen would not even have been compensated for 

their gear. 

On the Sacramento, plumbing of Shasta Dam to allow regulation 

of the temperature of the flows released from the dam were rejected 

as "too costly" and tbe "miti9ation" tacility -- the Battle Creek 

fish hatchery -- was foisted by the project on the u.s. Fish " 

Wildlite Service to operate out of the Service's budget (not from 

project revenues). Further, the project forced the hatchery to pay 
196 

3 

the highest rates tor electricity (a 11111jor cost of hatchery 

operations) charged by the Bureau, far higher than that paid by the 

project's aqricultural contractors. Only recently has the rate 

charged the hatchGry for electricity been reduced and efforts made 

to begin the badly needed modernization of the Coleman National 

Fish Hatchery~ even with increased production, this facility will never fully mitigate the loss of salmon habitat in the Pitt, 

McCloud and Little Sacramento Rivers. 

In the mid 1970's as a result of the drought and the increased 

sale of Bureau water, high water temperatures from Shasta's summer releases were causing a serious problem for the survival of winter 

and fall-run kings spawning in the stretch of river below the dam. 

The Bureau, with few exceptions, rejected requests for cold water 

releases from the base of the dam to protect the fish, saying the 

protection of fish was "not a project purpose". Ironically, had 

Shasta been plumbed, as recommended by biologists in the 19JO's, 

for temperature control, it would have been possible to regulate 

the flow temperatures while still maintaining hydro-electric power generation. It was not until the listing of winter-run salmon 

under the Endangered Species Act that the Bureau began making cold 

water releases and serious consideration given to the design and 

runding of a retrofit device for temperature control. 

Downriver, the CVP's Red Bluff Diversion Dam, was built and 

completed in 1964. This unit ot the CVP could not be justified alone for agricultural water, so the Bureau threw in salmon 

enhancement to justify its construction. In operation, however, 

Red Bluff proved to be a salmon killer, not an enhancement facility as promised. All efforts at making the spawning channel work were given up on a few years ago. For years the Bureau refused to raise 

the gates at the dam to allow the safe downstream migration of 

winter and fall-run baby salmon, arguing the protection of fish was "not a project purpose". It was not until the listing of the 

winter-run that the qates were finally lifted to allow the 

downstream migration of baby winter-run. only after the winter- run listing, have serious discussions begun on alternatives for the 

diversion o~ water at Red Bluff. 

On the American River, the Nimbus hatchery, operated by the 

state under contract with the Bureau, has never successfully mitigated habitat losses and much of the actual rearing has to be 

done at the state facility at oroville. Further, huge fluctuations 

in flow releases from Folsom, often leave the redds high and dry after spawning, killing the salmon eggs. Again, thG Bureau refused 

to consider the fate of salmon below the dam, saying their 

protection was "not a project purpose". 

The Trinity Unit of the CVP, completed in 1964, diverted flow 

from this north coast river into the CVP. The Trinity was regarded as the most important salmon producing tributary of the Klamath 

River. Although the Klamath-Trinity is not a larqe salmon 
197 

4 

producing river, the ocean tishery off northern California and 

southern oregon is regulated for the protection of Klamath and 

Trinity stocks and the river is important for sport fishing and 

the culture and subsistence of four different native American 

tribes. With up to 86% of the !low of this river being diverted, 

salmon and steelhead populations declined over 80%. In 1980, thenInterior secretary cecil Andrus did order flows increased in the 

Trinity to 340,000 acre-feet, but still tar less than the 700,000 

acre-feet recommended at the time by PCFFA. In fact, recent flow 

studies indicate that releases similar in size to those recoll\lllended 

by PCFFA will be needed to restore Trinity River salmon and 

steelhead runs. 

Last, operations of the project's Delta pumps, in concert with 

the operation of the state water Project's pumps, have had a devastating impact on the outmigration of' baby salmon. Entrainment 

at the pumps and the loss in the Delta ot fish due to change in 

flows has become such a larqe killer that most hatchery production 

is now trucked around the Delta for release into San Francisco Bay 

in order to improve survival. unfortunately, there is no way to 

truck the natural production; the only way to increase their 

survival is to curtail Delta pumping during critical mi<Jration 

periods. Again, curtailment bas only come as a result of the 

listing of the winter-run; the Bureau never felt compelled to take 

any measures to protect the fish in the Delta prior to that. 

There has been considerable debate about takings legislation 

in thie Congress, particularly in reqar<.ts to the Endangered Species 

Act and the wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act. If this 

Congress really wants to examine takings, however, and who the~ 

victims have been, it needs look no further than the salmon fishery 

and the jobs and economies this industry once supported. AAd, 

while many ot growers south of the Delta complain of having their 

supplies reduced by 25, so, even 75% in recent years because of the 

drought and curtailed Delta pumping, remember the !ish have had 

their f'low reduced by 100% on the San Joaquin, as much as 85i on the Trinity, and perhaps one-third to one-half overall through the 

Delta. 

BALANCE AND REFORM 

PCFFA and other fishing groups have been enthusiastic 

supporters of efforts to reform the Central Valley Project and 

restore some balance into a system that for fitty years favored 

out-of-stream diverters, much ot it for low value or subsidized 

crops, over (or at the expense of) in-stream food production. The 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act, while not goinq ae far aa PCFFA believed necessary to restore the fishery economy, 

nevertheless contained many needed ref'orms to the west'• largest 

and as yet unpaid-for reclamation project. The CVPIA includes a number of important provisions and reforms that are key to 

restoring california and southern oregon's salmon fishery; these 
198 

5 

include: 

Proleot pyrpose. Making the protection of fish and wildlife a project purpose Of the CVP, brought a needed a balance into the 

operation of the project. Prior to this {or at least the listing 

of the winter-run) fish were sacrificed for other project purposes. 

Under the CVPIA, the Bureau now must balance the needs of fish and 

wildlife with other project purposes. 

DO!.lbling Goal. The goal of doubling natural spawning 

anadromous fish populations of the Central Valley is a modest goal. 

The doubling goal dovetails with California's earlier adopted 

policy of doubling its salmon and steelhead populations. The CVPIA 

does not require a restoration of fish populations to pre-project 

levels, instead it establishes as base period well after the 

project was in operation to use for the doubling requirement. The wet years of 1983, 1984, 1985 and the spring of 1986 produced 

record levels ot salmon production in 1986, 1987 and 1988, and this 

year's good harvest appears to be a result of the 1992-93 wet year. 

This gives us confidence that it is not only possible to double 

these populations but, perhaps, even triple them. The u.s. Fish 

& Wildlife Service has recently released a long list of possible 

actions that could be taken for the doubling and is now preparing, 

based on what is reasonable and prudent, the draft CVPIA doubling 

plan. It is clear to PCFFA, due to the California Department of 

Fish & Game's fiscal crisis and its lack of a director, federal 

leadership will be required to ensure the doubling goal is met. 

The attempt to turn the implementation of the doubling plan over to the atate is nothing more than an effort to kill the doubling 

plan, pure and simple. 

800.000 Acre-Feet. The set-aside of soo,ooo acre-feet of water was much less than PCFFA felt was needed given the multimillion acre-teet diversions by the project taking p1ace. This 

800,000 acre-feet can, however, play an important role in the 

doubling goal, protecting endangered species and meeting Bay-Delta 

water quality standards, provided it is used wisely. Additional water that may be needed tor the fish will have to be purchased 

from the project, provided any is available. 

Restoration Fund. California's salmon fishermen have taxed 

themselves through their salmon stamp program to raise funds for 

salmon restoration (the commercial salmon stamp program has been 

the single largest source of salmon rastoration dollars in the state over the past decade). But fishermen are not in a position to pay to J:"epair all the damage done to salmon stocks by the 

project. The CVPIA'a requirement that the beneficiaries of the 

project pay into a fund to help restore damage done by the CVP was 

a long-overdue reform. 

son Joaquin River Stuay. 

included within all of the 

PCFFA souqht to have the San Joaquin 

other provision•, including tiah 
199 

6 

doubling, of the CVPlA. However, the bill's authors, as a conceeeion to Central Valley Congressional members, agreed instead on a atudy to determine what measures might be feasible for 

restoring all or part of the San Joaquin fish and wildlife. In 

what PCFFA views now as nothing more than treachery, those same members who asked for the study are now trying to defund it, to kill it. If these members do not want a study, then let's simply 

get on with restoring the san Joaquin. Our first recommendation, 

since there is no study, is that flows adequate to support fish 

lite be llil!lde available for release !rom Friant Oam. There is, 

after all, no study to say this is not reasonable or prudent. 

Remember, fishe~en will never forget the san Joaquin. 

Prptegtion of the Trinity, The protection of Trinity flows, 

requested by Mr. Riggs in 1992, was also an important element of 

tho CVl>IA. Certainly the return of fishing jobs to the north coast depends on the restoration ot Klamath and Trinity stocks, as well as a change in the method or place of allocating those stocks (not 

necessarily in the allocation percentages). PCFFA supported the 

Riggs' provisions of 1992, as it will be supporting this year a 

reauthorization of a reformed Trinity River Basin Fish & Wildlife 

Restoration Act. 

H.R. 1906 

Make no mistake, the real reform of the Central Valley Project 

occurred in 1992 when President Bush signed the CVPIA. PCFFA's 

review of H.R. 1906, as currently drafted, is that it is 49 pages 

ot text repealing the CVPIA. Euphemistically called reform, the 

bill is nothing more than a return to the old business-as-usual 

days of CVP pork barrel operations. PCFFA does not dispute the 

fact that most pieces of major legislation are followed by 

sub•equent "clean-up" measures to clarity meanings or address 

glitchee. Indeed, PCFFA is currently working a crab limited entry 

clean-up bill through the California Legislature presently to 

address needed changes to its legislation of l.ast year. And, qiven 

the tact that many of the CVP contractors choose to fight the 

passage of the CVPIA, rather than contribute to its drafting, it 

is not surprising they may now have some problems. 

The question is, is legislation needed now? First, what are the real probl.ems CVP contractors are having with the CVPIA? Keep 

in mind, the aoo,ooo acre-feet has yet to be used and the 

reductions in deliveries have had nothing to do with the CVPIA. 

Nor have all the planned uses for the restoration fund been 

finalized. Whore's the beef? 

Second, to the extent legitimate problems may exist, are they 

amenable to administrative remedies? Oo we really need new statutory language to address problems, many minor in nature, that can be handled administratively? 
200 

7 

Third, PCPPA and many of the other supporters of the CVPIA 

have always been willing to sit down and address problems contractors and would be contractors have with the CVPIA. To date, 

howavar, all we have heard is people wanting legislation, wanting to repeal tha CVPIA, but unwilling to elaborate, or perhaps fearful 

of elaborating, their problems. The Act is barely two years old 

and many of its provisions are only now starting to be implemented, no thanks to many of the contractors who have thrown up legal 

hurdles every step along the way to implementing the CVPIA. 

CONCLUSION 

PCFFA does not see the reason for any legislation at this time 

affecting the CVPIA, and certainly not H.R. 1906, as currently 

drafted, which repeals the CVPIA. The l04th Congress is to be 

conqratulated for its goal of balancing the federal budget by 2002. 

To do that, many Americans will be asked to sacrifice including the 

younq and the elderly. Leaders o! this Conqress have talked o! the 

need to end pork. The l02nd congress worked to put an end to one the nation's larqest pork barrel projects -- the central Valley 

Project -- by reforming its operations. It would indeed be ironic 

that now the 104th Congress would pass a bill such as H.R. 1906 

turning the clock back, returning to pork barrel projects. PCFFA 

respectfully urges H.R. 1906 be withdrawn. 

Thank you tor this opportunity to present this written 

testimony. PCPFA will be pleased to respond in writing to any 

questions of subcommittee members or staff, 
201 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources 

The Honorable John Doolittle, Chairman 

Statement of Richard M. Moss, Manager 

Friant Water Users Authority 

July 20, 1995 

Washington, D.C. 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Richard M. 

Moss. I am the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority. The Friant Water 

Users Authority is a Joint Powers Authority comprised of 25 member irrigation and water 

districts along the east side of the San Joaqum Valley, ranging from Chowchilla Water 

District on the north, in Madera County, to Arvin-Edison Water Storage District on the south, 

in Kern County. Despite their diversity, these districts share a very important feature-they 

all receive water from the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project ("CVP"). 

The Friant Division is one of the original parts of the CVP as conceived back in the 1920's 

and 1930's by the State of California and subsequently developed by the federal government 

under the Reclamation Program. Friant Division facilities include Friant Dam and Millerton 

Lake on the San Joaqum River northeast of Fresno; the Madera Canal, which runs for 35 

miles to the north, serving the Madera Irrigation District and the Chowchilla Water District, 

and the Friant-Kern Canal, which runs for 152 miles to the south, delivering water to 26 

different irrigation districts, water districts and cities. 

Friant Division water supplies make up a large part of the surface water available to the 

counties of Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Madera. These, respectively, are the Number 1, 

Number 2, Number 3 and Number 7 producing counties in the nation in terms of agricultural 

product. The agricultural output from these four counties will exceed that produced in most 

countries. 

The area is comprised of principally small family farms numbering in excess of 10,000 units, 

planted to pennanent plantings of high value crops. 

This tmly is a region that is unique in its combination of soils, water, climate and talented 

people. Because of its unique attributes, this area must be preserved and protected. There 

has been clearly a federal role in the development of the region and there will continue to be 

a federal role in assuring of the long-term productivity of the region. Much of what I will 

describe to you here today, especially in terms of the suggested changes to the San Joaqum 

River provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act ("CVPIA"), goes to the 

notion of preserving and protecting this unique region. 
202 

The CVPIA went far beyond the idea of addressing environmental concerns related to the 

construction and development of the CVP. Unfornmately, many aspects of the CVPIA 

created unnecessary uncertainty and prescribed actions which could only be classified as 

punitive in nature. Many of these so called "improvements" have already proven themselves 

to be unfair, while generating little, if any, environmental benefit. 

What you have developed and subsequently introduced, Mr. Chairman, in the form of the 

Central Valley Project Reform Act ("CVPRA"), will in many cases strengthen the CVPIA by 

clarifying the intent of Congress. It will remove those provisions that provide no 

environmental benefit. yet add to the uncertainty of water management in California. It will 

fix many of the problems that we have encountered to date in implementation of the CVPIA. 

You, the members of your committee and the many others who have worked very hard in 

developing the CVPRA should be congratulated on your effort. Successful passage of this 

legislation will clearly add to the environmental value of the CVPIA by making an 

unworkable law workable, while solidifying the baseline on which futute changes to water 

management in California can be based. 

If there is a theme to be found in my testimony today, it will be the CVPRA will not be 

"gutting" the CVPIA as some would characterize it, but is in fact a necessary correction to 

the CVPIA so as to make it of much greater value to California and the nation, moving the 

CVP into a position of greater environmental protection, while at the same time assuring that 

we have a reliable project. 

Let me specifically address a couple of the provisions of the CVPRA and give you my 

analysis of the value of these provisions. 

San J oaguin River and Friant Division Provisions 

Section 6(b)(7) of the CVPRA calls for a rewrite of the part of the CVPIA wherein the 

federal stud)' of the San Joaquin River, known as the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, 

is replaced with direction to assist the State of California and appropriate local agencies in 

implementing a number of specific improvements. 

Much of this section of the CVPRA deals with the implementation of the results of the state 

mandated San Joaquin River Management Program ("SJRMP"), a five-year consensus-based 

effort culminating in a report back to the State Legislature, which was finalized earlier this 

month. Many of the specific measures which would be implemented on the San Joaquin 

River under the CVPRA are to enhance the viability of the existing salmon fishery on the San 

Joaquin River and were pulled from the SJRM:P report. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Bureau of Reclamation were involved in the development of the San Joaquin River 

Management Program and in the fmal report. Clearly, the suggestion of the CVPRA to move 

to immediately begin to implement programs developed over an existing five-year study will 

have far greater environmental value than to have the federal goveroment independently 

2 
203 

trying to generate its own analysis of what needs to be done on the San Joaquin River. We 

need action-not more study. 

The consensus that has been building behind abandoning any effort to re-establish the 

remnant salmon fishery that existed on the San Joaquin River before the construction of 

Friant Dam back in the 1940's has been overwhelming. Virtually everyone who has taken a 

serious look at the availability of the limited resources and the tremendous benefits of the 

current use of the waters of the San Joaquin River within the Friant Division has reconfirmed 

the original analysis by Congress when it authorized the Friant Division-there is simply not 

enough water to have both a viable salmon fishery below Friant Dam and to provide the 

water necessary to take advantage of the tremendous agricultural potential wbich exists within 

the lands of the Friant Division. 

The CVPRA will reconfirm that it is of national interest to insure that water will continue to 

flow to the Friant Division service area by prohibiting releases from Friant Dam directly into 

the San Joaquin River. Let me clarify, however, that Friant Division water users are not 

absolved, by virtue of this language, from fully participating in all other aspects of state or 

federal law which would apply to any other water user in the State of California. In fact, you 

have gone to great lengths in addressing this concern in the language of the CVPRA. Friant 

water users have always been willing to do their "fair share" of environmental restoration and 

improvements-just not at the extraordinary expense of having to re-establish flows below 

Friant Dam. 

Further, this legislation resolves a difficult problem that was facing the Administration in 

implementation of the San Joaquin River provisions of the CVPIA. Not long after the San 

Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan Study was begun by the federal government, it became 

obvious that the principal emphasis of the study to evaluate the re-establishment of the 

salmon fishery from Friant Dam to the Delta was not "doable". Everyone, including 

Secretary of Interior Babbitt, agreed that even studying the re-establishment of the salmon 

fishery was a waste of time. Yet Congress had dictated by virtue of the CVPIA that a study 

be done. The only way to resolve this problem is to have the CVPIA re-visited by Congress 

with the limitations that are now proposed as part of the CVPRA. 

There clearly is a need for a federal presence in resolving the issues of the San Joaquin River. 

The need for the federal government to conduct its own study, however, has been obviated 

by the completion of the San Joaquin River Management Program. The federal government , 

enabled with the money and direction to begin immediately implementing the improvements 

prescribed in the CVPRA for San Joaquin River, will accelerate real environmental 

improvement. 

The CVPRA would also propose to limit the "in lieu of water" contribution of money from 

Friant water users, the so called Friant Surcharge. This proposed limitation is clearly a result 

of your improved understanding of how the Friant Division of the CVP relies upon 

conjunctive use of groundwater as a major water management tool for the region. The 

3 
204 

immediate new costs added by the CVPIA to Friant Division water supplies amounted to 

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

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

with dividing fued 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 adveiSely affecting groundwater management decisions in the Friant 

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

pumping 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 useiS continue to take surface water rather 

than tum to overdrafted groundwater supplies for purely economic reasons. Water tolls are 

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

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

counties 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 limiting the Restoration Fund 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-tenn water 

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

virtue of its implementation to date, is clearly unreasooable, 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 whlch 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. 

4 
205 

The proposed changes will re-establish the baseline, the foundation, from which the CVP 

water users can effect changes in water management in their districts and outside of their 

districts. One of the problems that was not very well understood at the time of passage of the 

CVPIA was that to the extent there was uncertainty injected into the basic understanding of 

what these water service contracts meant, then that uncertainty would necessarily translate 

itself into an unwillingness to participate in longer term commitments for such things as water 

marketing programs, system improvements and other new approaches to water management. 

A district is much more likely to be willing to enter into arrangements which will lead to 

resolving many of California's water management problems, if it knows the totality of their 

obligations, and if it can reasonably predict that there will be an adequate water supply to 

meet the needs of its constituents in the future. Injecting uncertainty into the renewal of these 

water service contracts virtually eliminated the potential for CVP contractors to .enter into any 

form of long-term water tnarketing program or meaningful discussion of providing either 

water or money in resolution of California's water management crisis. 

Again, much of what is being proposed as part of the CVPRA will return the CVP and the 

CVP contractors to a better understanding of what their baseline water supply and financial 

obligations will be, putting CV1' water users in a much better position from which to continue 

meaningful discussions of resolving California's water problems, including the myriad of 

problems associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay. 

Tiered Water Pricing 

Currently, the CVPIA contains provisions which require water service contracts of longer than 

three years (i.e., long-term renewal contracts) to provide for tiered water pricing. Under the 

mandated pricing scheme, the first 80 percent of the "contract total" supply will be priced at 

the "applicable contract" rate, the next 10 percent of the "contract total" will be priced 

halfway between the "applicable contract" rate and the "full cost" rate, and all retnaining 

water delivered will be priced at "full cost" rate. These prices ate to be charged by the 

Bureau of Reclamation to the district. 

Tiered pricing has been widely touted as an effective means of encouraging water 

conservation. However, a "one size fits all" approach to any water conservation measure 

ignores unique circumstances of different districts and imposes unnecessary burdens without 

any counterbalancing benefits. This is particulatly true for tiered water pricing. "On the 

ground" experience dearly demonstrates that tiered pricing does not produce water 

conservation in all instances. In some cases, it is even counterproductive and contrary to 

sound water management, in that it can make overdrafted groundwater supplies less expensive 

than the more expensive "tiers• of surface water. Providing water users with an incentive to 

extract dwindling groundwater supplies in lieu of surface water is nonsensicaL It has the 

potential of further exacerbating the problems described above currently being encountered in 

managing the increased cost of surface water supplies resulting from the CVPIA. The simple 

fact is that tiered water pricing does not result in significant water savings for farmers in the 

5 
206 

Central Valley, especially in light of their water shortages 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 Fund 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 availability 

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 "tlte highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable 

by project contractors using best available cost-effective 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·terrn renewal of water service 

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

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

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

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

reflect tlte language of tlte CVPIA and go far beyond the Jaw's legislative authorization. 

Without any legal basis, tlte Bureau bas even conditioned water deliveries to districts on tlte 

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 actnally cause environmental harm (such as 

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

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

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

6 
207 

should be meaningful conservation, not needless hardship on districts and their landowners. 

The concern over these conservation criteria is resonating throughout the west, as neatly 

identical, but clearly Jess strident criteria are proposed in other Reclamation states by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. These other states will verify the inappropriateness of these criteria. 

Water users in the Friant Division believe in water conservation, and have led the nation in 

pioneering water conservation techniques. We have leatned, however, that the same 

conservation measures simply cannot be applied to all water users. Individual circumstances 

must be taken into account to develop a plan that best suits each district. A district should 

not be obligated to prove that a given measure does not produce meaningful conservation, and 

should not be required to implement a conservation measure until it is demonstrated to be 

useful and cost effective. Unreasonable burdens on districts or water users should be avoided, 

and proposed conservation measures should be subjected to cost/benefit analysis by the 

Bureau to demonstrate that they are economical1y feasible under the circumstances of each 

district. Conservation plans must also take into consideration each district's size, probable 

water supply, economic resources and other relevant factors when imposing uniform 

conservation measures. The proposals you have made by virtue of your introduction of the 

CVPRA would accomplish all of those goals while ensuring meaningful conservation efforts 

on the part of CVP water users. 

Virtually all of the proposed revisions in the water conservation provisions of the CVPIA are 

in response to unreasonable Bureau implementation of the existing law. CVP districts have 

encountered extraordinary difficulties in processing water conservation plans, and have made 

little progress in correcting those problems despite repeated efforts to work with the Bureau to 

make implementation of the CVPIA water conservation provisions more balanced and 

reasonable. Generally, and quite appropriately, the CVPRA does not pursue legislative 

solutions to problems that can be addressed administratively. Where the Bureau has indicated 

a genuine willingness to proceed administratively, CVP districts stand ready to work with the 

Bureau to resolve CVPIA implementation problems. However, that is !!Q! the case in water 

conservation matters. The CVPRA is thus needed to facilitate meaningful water conservation 

efforts under the CVPIA. 

Summary 

In summary of my statement today, let me again note my appreciation for your willingness to 

once again address the issues of water mattagement in the Central Valley Project of 

California. 

The proposed changes in the CVPIA, as outlined in the CVPRA, represent a studied review 

of the CVPIA, its implementation to date, and its chances for a successful implementation in 

the future. The adjustments proposed by the CVPRA are needed and should be considered 

the minimum required in order to make the CVPIA a workable law. There is considerably 

more of the CVPIA that could have been, and maybe should have been, addressed by this 

legislation. It was obviously assumed by the authors of the CVPRA that many of the other 

7 
208 

problems encountered in the implementation of the CYPIA will be able to be effectively 

addressed through administrative means rather than through legislation. We hope that this is 

in fact the case. 

Certainly, these reforms will help to send the message to those responsible for implementing 

the CVPIA that Congress has been watching the implementation of the CYPIA and is willing 

to re-address those issues where it feels that the law is being unfairly implemented or 

misunderstood. It is important for the Congress to follow through in effecting these proposed 

minimal changes and to thus further ensure that reasonable implementation of the balance of 

the CVPIA will follow. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you here today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have about my testimony or the impacts of the CYPIA upon 

the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project. 

8 
209 

P.O. Box 1341 • Hoopa, C.llfomt. t5546 • (et6) 62~211 

. Dale Rlsllng, Sr. 

Chairman 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE Regular mMtlngl on 1at & 31'd Thuradays ol MCh Month 

TESTIMONY OF PLINY MC COVEY, SR .. VICE-CHAIRMAN, 

HOOPA VALLEY Tribe OF CALIFORNIA, 

1906, 

2. Background A W::: 

The Trinity River is the only source of Central Valley Project (CVP) water that 

originates outside the Central Valley watershed . In its natural state, the Trinity River is 

a tributary of the Klamath River; its waters rise in the Coast Range and flow through the 

Hoopa Valley and Yurok Reservations before discharging into the Pacific Ocean. The 

average annual yield of the Trinity River is approximately 1.2 million acre feet (A.F.) of 

water. Since time immemorial, our Tribal cultures, economies, religions and communities 

have been integrally related to the once-abundant waters and fisheries of the KlamathTrinity Basin. Our existing reservations were established in recognition of our reliance on 

and rights to those resources. 
210 

In modern times the Courts, the Congress, and both Republican and Democratic 

Administrations have recognized Indian reserved fishing rights in the Trinity River fishery. 

When Congress authorized the Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project in 1955 (69 

Stat. 719). it required that in-stream flows be maintained for the "preservation and 

propagation of fish and wildlife" in the Trinity River. JQ, § 2. Nonetheless. the Trinity 

Division eliminated spawning habitat in 1 09 river miles of the Trinity Basin and resulted 

in the diversion to the Central Valley of up to 90 percent of the average annual discharge 

of the Trinity River at Lewiston Dam impounded by the Trinity Division. 

Despite Congress' clear intent to the contrary. the rights and needs of the Indian 

and non-Indian citizens of the Trinity River basin to fish. wildlife, and water resources were 

completely subordinated by the Bureau of Reclamation to the demands of the CVP. The 

once abundant salmon fishery to which the Tribes in the basin own reserved fishing rights 

and which was a mainstay of the Pacific Coast commercial fishing industry was nearly 

destroyed. The Trinity River is now incapable of supplying the ceremonial and subsistence 

needs of the Tribes. let alone supporting Tribal commercial fisheries, which ti te Tribes have 

not had in five years. 

Each Tribe in the Commission has made a commitment to fishery restoration 

through the establishment of Tribal fishery agencies that conduct research. manage Tribal 

fisheries and participate in intergovernmental management programs with State and 

Federal agencies. For our part the Hoopa Valley Tribe has established a timber harvest 

management plan that is heavily oriented to watershed protection by the establishment 

of conservative stream side protection zones. In doing so the Tribe will forego future 

timber revenues with a present value of $50 million. 

3. legislative, Administrative and Judicial actions to restore the Trinity River 

As the impacts of the Trinity Division's exportation of water to the Central Valley 

became clear, the Tribes and their non-Indian neighbors demanded enforcement, which 

was required by the Act of 1995 for the release of water to the Trinity River. In 1981, 

the Secretary of the Interior ordered a reduction in exports (annual in-stream flow releases 

were increased from 1 20,000 A. F. to 340,000 A.F.) to the Central Valley and began a 

long-term study to determine the water supply needed for the Trinity River fishery. 

In 1984, Congress enacted Public Law 98-541 to provide for the restoration of the 

fish and wildlife resources damaged by the construction and operation of the Tri;1ity 

Division. The 1984 Act directed the Secretary to develop a management plan to restore 

fish and wildlife populations in the basin to those levels that existed prior to the 

construction of the Trinity Division facilities. 

The 1984 Act a1so established the Trinity River Task Force, which was composed 

of Federal, State, County and Tribal representatives. For the first time, Congress 

established a statutory role for Tribal and County officials from the Trinity Basin in the 

Testimony by Pliny Me Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 2 
211' 

recovery and management of the fish and wildlife in their own communities. In other 

words, the 1984 Act finally acknowledged those who, as far as the Central Valley Project 

was concerned, had become the forgotten Californians. 

The severe drought in the late 1980s and the operating criteria for the Trinity 

Division that emphasizeJ diversions of water to the CVP was devastating. Not only were 

fish populations further weakened, low flows in the Trinity River prevented the 

development of needed data for the long-term study. In 1 991 Interior Secretary Manuel 

Lujan, Jr .. {a former Member of this Committee! directed the Bureau of Reclamation to 

release annually a minimum of 340,000 acre feet of water from the Trinity Division for the 

benefit of the fishery. That decision was crucial to the restoration of the Trinity River 

fishery. 

Anticipating efforts to rescind that decision, we requested our Representative, 

Congressman Frank Riggs, to reinforce it with an Act of Congress. He agreed and. after 

a difficult legislative battle, achieved bipartisan support for enactment of section 

3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA which became known as the Riggs Amendment. The Riggs 

Amendment both confirmed Secretary Lujan's decision and established a legislative 

framework for reaching a final decision on water requirements for the Trinity River fishery 

and developing operating criteria and procedures tor the Trinity Division. 

The 1 984 Restoration Act, Secretary Lujan's 1991 administrative decision, and the 

1992 Riggs Amendment each required that decisions on Trinity River water supplies be 

based on the best available scientific data. 

Having failed to prevent adoption of Secretary Lujan's administrative decision or 

the enactment of the Riggs Amendment, the Central Valley Project attacked the Riggs 

Amendment 1n court. That attack collapsed almost as soon as it began. A Federal district 

court in the Central Valley ruled that the Riggs Amendment had a solid foundation in the 

administrative record developed by Secretary Lujan, and that the Department of the 

Interior could immediately begin implementation of the Riggs Amendment without pnor 

additional compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Westlands Water 

District. et al. v. United States, CV-F-93-5327-0WW, (E.D. Calif., April 28, 1994) 

(Memorandum Opinion and Orderl. The plaintiffs did not appeal. 

Thus, the Riggs Amendment has been through a rigorous review by all three 

branches of government. In each case our opponents have done their best to defeat it, 

and each time they have failed. They have had their three strikes and they ought to be 

out. 

Section 6(b){6l of H.R. 1906 is the latest assault on the Riggs Amendment. H.R. 

1906 would force the return to the political arena in Congress of detailed scientific data 

regarding fishery conservation and hydrology that the Department of the Interior has spent 

years in developing at Congress' direction. It is a flagrant attack on Indian reserved fishing 

Testimony by Pliny Me Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 3 
212 

rights, and an apparent contradiction of the reform-minded values of the new leadership 

in the House of Representatives. The lobbyists for HR 1906 described their strategy to 

repeal the Riggs Amendment in a Memorandum that was released to the public: 

As you know, Rep. Riggs is urging California Members 

not to cosponsor a CVPIA bill that includes our Trinity River 

provision. He has sent around a "Dear Colleague" harshly 

critical of the proposal. 

Because of Riggs' influential position on the 

Appropriations Committee, we should make an effort to 

resolve his concerns now. 

One possible avenue to compromise would be to 

require the Secretary to issue new flow requirements as 

regulations are subject to APA. Making the Secretary take 

regulatory action would give us a role in the process without 

appearing to "inject politics· into it. It also would make the 

Secretary's actions on the Trinity subject to any regulatory 

reform measures Congress enacts, such as peer review and 

benefit cost analysis. (We might want to require those as 

part of the deal.) We also could consider requinng the 

Secretary's recommendations to take into account the 

economic and environmental effects on the Sacramento 

system. 

Accommodating Riggs by dropping or immediately 

amending the Trinity River provision would have several 

benefits. It would allow us to avoid making an enemy out of 

a powerful California Republican; deny a powerful ally to the 

enviros; demonstrate in a very concrete way that we are 

willing to be flexible and accommodate other interests; keep 

Riggs as a friend on appropriations issues now and in the 

future; and. avoid dissention within the Valley delegation over 

the CVPIA. 

Memorandum from the Ferguson Company to Central Valley Project Water Users 

Association 2-3 (May 18, 1995). 

The Ferguson Company memorandum was featured in the July 17, 1995, issue of 

U.S. News and World Reoqrt in an article pointing out that the seven cosponsors of H.R. 

1906 "received $527.479 in political contributions from agricultural interests prior to the 

1994 election. • 

Testimony by Pliny Me Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 4 
Testimony on H.R. 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 5 

213 

H.R. 1906 is a thinly disguised attempt to bog down, politically and 

bureaucratically, a process that is a model of what the new majority in Congress has 

sworn to establish: a locally inspired, orderly process that uses the best available 

scientific information to reach a timely, constructive, and fair decision about retaining a 

mere fraction of the Trinity Basin's yield in the Trinity River while continuing to export the 

vast majority of it to the Central Valley. The Tribes and California's North Coast 

economies have given more than their fair share to the CVP and have received little in 

return. It is time to let well enough alone and let the people of the Trinity River Basin have 

a chance to rebuild their economy which is heavily dependant on the resources of this 

river. Moreover, the depressed North Coast economies have benefited from other nonconsumptive uses of the river. For example, since implementation of the mandated 

340,000 acre feet minimum Trinity River releases, recreational industries (rafting, boating) 

have increased. This is extremely important to local economies where, at times, 

unemployment exceeds 60%. 

4. Additional comments 

Section 6(a) of H.R. 1906 would add a provision to the CVPIA which States that 

"By pursuing the programs and activities authorized by this sect1on [including 

3406(b)(23)], the Secretary shall be deemed to have met the mitigation, protection. 

restoration and enhancement purpose established by this subsection." Section 

3406(a)(5). "Pursuing• is undefined; but given its plain meaning in the sentence, any 

activity associated with implementation of the statutory program is declared to be an 

achievement of the purpose of the act. Under that provision, merely completi11g the flow 

study could be seen as "pursuing • the Trinity River program and therefore the program 

could be deemed to have been effective. 

Section 6(b)(61 of H.R. 1906 amends the Riggs Amendment (3406(b)(23) of the 

CVPIAl in a way that is defective in substance, grammar, syntax. The amendment would 

rewrite the Riggs Amendment as six subparagraphs. In the amendment, the Federal trust 

responsibility to the Hoopa Valley Tribe's fishery resources appears to be applicable only 

to subparagraph {A), that pertains to releases of water between 1992 and 1996. 

However, the Riggs Amendment recognized that the trust responsibility extended to 

implementation of all aspects of the Riggs Amendment including future flow management 

decisions. 

The sentence structure of the Riggs Amendment relates back to the introductory 

phrase of section 3406(b) which States: "The Secretary, in consultation with other State 

and Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and affected interests, is further authorized and 

directed to: (1) .... • Thus, the proposed section 22 of H.R. 1906 should have been 

adapted to that antecedent sentence structure. 

Testimony by Pliny Me Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 5 
Testimony on H.R. 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 6 

5. Summary Statement 

214 

In summary, on behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Klamath River Inter-Tribal 

Fish and Water Commission, we adamantly oppose any Congressional efforts to 

circumven, the intent of the original Rigg's Trinity River Provision of the CVPIA. The 

future of the Tribes, and to a large extent the North Coast economies, rest upon 

successful restoration of the Trinity Basin. The Tribes are in agreement with our up-river 

neighbors {Trinity County) that needless delays to the Interior Secretary's 1996 Trinity 

River stream flow decision "is in essence, continuance of a 'taking' against the people•. 

To proceed today with the structured Secretarial flow decision process as outlined for the 

Trinity River in the original Rigg's legislation. is to avoid tomorrow the specter now facing 

Congress in the San Joaquin Basin. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for affording me this 

opportunity to provide verbal testimony. 

Testimony by Pliny Me Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

July 20, 1995 

Page 6 
215 

TESTIMONY OF STIJART L. SOMACH 

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

REGARDING H.R 1906 

"THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT REFORM ACT OF 1995" 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

July 20, 1995 

My name is Stuart L. Somach. I am an attorney with the Sacramento law 

firm of DeCuir & Somach and am here representing various Northern 

California water interests, including the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, for 

which I am General Counsel, water contractors on the Tehama-Colusa Canal and 

through the Northern California Water Association, numerous Sacramento 

River Water Rights Settlement Contractors. 

The entities that I have listed (along with other water users who obtain all 

or a part of their water supply through the Central Valley Project ("CVP")) have 

had direct exposure to and have been directly affected by the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, 106-Stat. 4707 ("CVPIA"). As a consequence, the 

people I here represent have had and continue to have more than just a passing 

interest in the CVPIA and its implementation. They have been greatly interested 

in proposals that would clarify the CVPIA and better insure its reasonable and 

successful implementation. 

We believe that H.R 1906 constitutes one approach for dealing with 

problems associated with the CVPIA. It addresses significant problems associated 

with the CVPIA but still maintains the core environmental purposes and 

provisions of the CVPIA and, in fact, seeks to improve the chances that we will 

achieve the CVPIA' s primary goals. 

I know that this last statement may be hotly contested by some. Prior to 

reaching any conclusions with respect to H.R 1906, we undertook an analysis of 

its provisions with one eye on insuring that needed environmental protections 

were not compromised and the other focused upon the need to clarify some of 

the more troublesome provisions of the CVPIA. The conclusion of that analysis 

is that each provision of the Bill is appropriate and that the Bill does not 

compromise the core environmental protections within the CVPIA. 

I represent here individuals and entities that are all located within the 

Sacramento Valley, upstream of the Delta. Those who hold prior water rights in 

the Sacramento Valley settled the land around the time of Statehood and some 

have perfected prior water rights that date back to the 1800's. It is an area that is 

environmentally rich and in which, over the last decade or so, great strides have 

-2-
216 

been made toward developing environmental partnerships with various parties, 

including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation and 

environmental groups. These partnerships have allowed us to create extensive 

wildlife and waterfowl habitat within and adjacent to cultivated fields. As part of 

this process we have reduced the burning of rice straw which has minimized air 

quality conflicts. We have also reduced pesticide loading by over 95%, thereby 

improving the general quality of the rivers and streams in the Sacramento 

Valley. Additionally, in cooperation with various state and federal agendes, we 

are in the process of addressing problems associated with fish screens, and have 

contributed funds and expertise beyond that required by the CVPIA to study and 

improve fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, in order to reduce or 

eliminate any adverse impact of our operations on fish populations. The net 

result of our efforts and successes, in this regard, is an attitude that does not 

oppose reasonable environmental protections but welcomes them. 

With the foregoing in mind, I would like to tum my attention to the 

provisions of H.R 1906 which most affect interests in the Sacramento Valley. 

Initially, it was our understanding that the CVPIA was not intended to be 

punitive to existing CVP contractors. The CVPIA itself provides that among its 

purposes is the achievement of a reasonable balance among competing demands 

for use of CVP water including requirements of agricultural, municipal and 

industrial, power contractors and the requirements of fish and wildlife. Since 

enactment, this core purpose has been more or less ignored, with CVP 

contractors' needs being subordinated to fish and wildlife-driven operations. As 

we read H.R. 1906, it appears that one of its fundamental purposes is to clarify 

this point, both through a revised statement of purposes, and also through 

modifications in certain substantive provisions of the CVPIA. These 

modifications seek to address unreasonable imbalance in the CVPIA and its 

implementation. 

H.R 1906 would modify three definitions in the CVPIA. The first 

modification seeks to clarify the definition of "anadromous flSh" so that the term 

is limited to stocks of Salmon. This clarification, in our view, is helpful. 

Focusing on habitat and flow-related demands of this species will have the 

benefit of improving the environment for other fish species without 

unreasonably encumbering the process through a requirement that all 

anadromous flsh species need to be doubled. The current CVPIA approach 

creates the anomalous situation in which one must attempt to double both 

predator species such as Striped Bass and prey such as Salmon at the same time. 

This approach never made much common sense and correction of this problem 

should allow for greater success in reaching the real goals of the CVPIA in a 

reasonable fashion. 

The other modifications to definitions focus on what water is subject to 

the provisions of the CVPIA and Bureau of Reclamation control. When the 

-3-
217 

CVPIA was drafted and debated we were assured that only CVP water would be 

implicated. In particular, we were concerned that the rights of those with statecreated water rights which pre-date the water rights acquired by the CVP would 

not be affected by the legislation. In its implementation of the CVPIA the Bureau 

of Reclamation has indicated that it will treat Settlement Contracts on the 

Sacramento River the same as CVP water service and repayment contracts. 

Sacramento River Settlement Contracts, however, are not water service or 

repayment contracts. These Settlement Contracts were entered into with the 

United States as a means to address and :resolve the protests of those with water 

rights on the Sacramento River to the granting of water rights to the Bureau of 

Reclamation for the CVP. These contracts were, in every sense of the word, a 

"settlement" of protests made by those with prior water rights on the Sacramento 

River. At no time was there any intent, nor can the contracts themselves be 

construed as simply converting those prior water rights to Reclamation contract 

rights. The base rights to water were never compromised as part of the 

settlements. 

Sections 3(b) and (c) of H.R. 1906 address this issue by providing 

appropriate clarification that the terms "Central Valley Project water," 

"repayment contract" and "water service contract" do not include water right 

settlement contracts such as those on the Sacramento River and that the only 

water that Reclamation can exercise control over is water that has been acquired 

by it. Water rights acquired by others, including Sacramento River Settlement 

Contractors, are not for the United States to control. 

As noted earlier, these provisions should not be viewed with concern by 

anybody. They merely confirm what was the intent, if not the letter, of the 

CVPlA. 

In the Sacramento Valley, on the Tehama-Colusa Canal, there are CVP 

water contractors who have never been provided adequate water supplies. This 

unit of the CVP was authorized with Congress providing a priority in 

contracting. Before contracting was completed, however, then Interior Secretary 

Andrus declared a contracting moratorium associated with environmental 

concerns in the Bay an<1 Delta. As a practical matter, this moratorium has never 

been lifted with the enactment of the CVPIA serving as a further obstacle to the 

United States providing to these contractors what had been promised. 

The CVPIA also created additional practical problems which did not serve 

to advance any particular environmental purpose and which, in fact, have 

sapped the Bureau's limited resources to the extent that we believe progress 

under the more critical provisions of the CVPIA has been prejudiced. For 

example, it established a destabilizing interim contracting procedure which 

provides that interim contracts must be entered into for terms of three years, 

then two years, until certain illusory events occur in the future. H.R. 1906 

provides that only one interim contract need be negotiated with regular long-
218 

tenn contracting to proceed upon the completion of the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Section 4 of H.R. 1906 also seeks to address the uncertainty created by the 

CVPIA treatment of contract tenn. The CVPIA creates the possibility that 

existing contracts would themselves not be renewed after an initial 25-year term. 

Section 4 provides for the mandatory renewal of contracts for successive periods 

of 25 years, thus recreating the stability in water supplies that existed prior to the 

enactment of the CVPIA. This provides CVP contractors with comparable, 

although still less advantageous, water supply reliability as users in every other 

Reclamation project in the West and the State of California's Water Project. 

Moreover, Section 4 does this without, in any way, affecting the environmental 

purposes of the CVPIA. All contracts that would be executed under this section 

are to include (and already do, in the interim renewals) provisions that will 

allow the environmental purposes of the CVPIA to be enforced and 

implemented. 

Proposed modification to CVPIA provisions on water transfers and water 

conservation are geared toward advancing these purposes. The provisions of 

H.R 1906 that address these issues and repeal of the ''one size fits all" tiered 

pricing were developed through experience and relate to how things really work 

as opposed to dealing with these issues on a purely theoretical basis. 

Section 6 of H.R. 1906 seeks to add certainty to the environmental 

compliance aspects of the CVPIA and to coordinate the CVPIA environmental 

restoration goals with that of the State of California. Section 6(b)(3), in particular, 

provides needed clarification with respect to the commitment of 800,000 acre feet 

of CVP water to advance the purposes of the CVPIA and other provisions of law. 

It provides, however, the common sense limitation that once the water is used 

for environmental purposes it can be diverted to agricultural and municipal and 

industrial purposes. As things currently stand, there is a great deal of resistance 

to the idea that once the 800,000 acre feet of CVP water is utilized for 

environmental purposes it can, where appropriate, be reclaimed for other CVP 

needs. Congress never intended that CVP contractors receive credit for the 

800,000 acre feet for the environment only if it hurt them. 

My purpose here is to focus on the aspects of H.R. 1906 that are most 

crucial to Sacramento Valley interests. It is important to us that these crucial 

issues be addressed in a reasonable fashion. The fact that I have not addressed 

the rest of H.R. 1906 does not mean that we have not reviewed these provisions 

or that we do not, on balance, support them. They are, however, best described 

by others. 

The CVPIA was developed in a "cut-and-paste" manner with various 

interested parties, particularly the environmental community, providing ideas 

and language that was adopted with little evaluation or question. In light of this, 

-5-
219 

it is not surprising that some provisions of the CVPIA are less than clear and, as 

a practical matter, do not work. It is also not surprising that In light of how the 

CVPIA was developed, the Bureau of Reclamation has not implemented the 

legislation In the most effective manner. The CVPIA clearly has major defects. 

We believe two options exist. The first is to ignore these defects out ol some illdefmed fear that to modify the CVPIA at all is to destroy its environmental 

effectiveness. The second option is to flx what is defective so that the CVPIA can 

serve the purposes for which it was written. We do not think that there should 

be any question about which course is the most appropriate way to proceed. We 

must fiX the defective aspects of the CVPIA so that it can serve as an effective 

vehicle to carry out its intended purposes. We believe that H.R 1906 does this in 

an appropriate and reasonable manner. 
220 

TESTXKONY BY CHAULES D.N. BROWER 

CHAXRKAN, NATXVE MXGRATORY BXRD WORXXNG GROUP 

ON 

POSSXBLE EFFECTS ON ALASKA NATXVES 

BY 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT XMPROVEMENT ACT 

The Honorable John Doolittle, Chairman House Subcommittee on Water & Power Resources, Members of the Committee, Ladies 

and Gentlemen. My name is Charles D.N. Brower, Chairman 

Native Migratory Bird Working Group (Native Working Group). 

The Native Working Group is a coalition of Alaska Native 

organizations that represent the interests of Alaska Natives 

who rely heavily on subsistence uses of migratory birds. We 

present this testimony after our careful and independent 

review of the California's Cenral Valley Project Improvement 

Act (CVPIA). 

Mr. Chairman, I can speak with some degree of authority on the issues of subsistence hunting of migratory birds. My 

people have customarily and traditionally hunted and 

harvested migratory birds for sustenance even before 

Columbus got lost and accidentally found himself in North 

America. In Alaska, record show that the subsistence 

hunting and harvesting of migratory birds are very low 

compared to the sports take throughout the United States. 

For example, the subsistence take on geese is about 3% and 

the sports take is 97%. The subsistence take of ducks in 

less than 3% of the sports take. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is, the customs and the traditions of Alaska 

Natives serve as the conservation measures for migratory 

birds because we do not take any more than we need for 

subsistence and, for the most part, we take them during spring time and leave them alone during the nesting season. We also do not shoot migratory birds for sport, period. 

We, in Alaska, are blessed with millions of acres of 

prime habitat for migratory birds and Alaska is, for the 

most part, where they pro-create the species. While; the 

habitat conservation may not be much of a problem in Alaska, our major concern continue to be the question of whether the 

migratory birds, both from the pacific and central fiyways have the quality wintering habitat they need in the lower 

48. The species of most concern to us include the Brants, 

the White-Fronts and Canadian Geese which make California 

their wintering habitat. We understand that the current 

wintering habitat, over the years, have been reduced to a level where there is now considerable concentration of 

migratory birds in small areas. What will happen if there 

is reduction in the wintering habitat of the Migratory 

Birds? How will the quality of wintering habitat be 

2 
221 

affected by reduction of appropriations of water to 

wetlands? 

Mr. Chairman, these are real concerns. we are hoping that 

you will do everything in your power to conserve the 

quantity and quality of wetlands in California to prevent 

any possible adverse impact on the migratory birds. We are at your mercy, but one thing is clear to us. We will 

continue to hunt and harvest migratory birds for subsistence 

in accordance with our customs and traditions. We trust 

that you will take our concerns into consideration in your 

deliberation on the proposed amendments to the CVPIA 

legislation. 

3 
222 

TESTIMONY OJ!' 

DENNIS DICKMAN, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CALAVERAS PUBLIC POWER 

AGENCY AND DOMINIC N. SALLUCE, AGENCY COORDINATOR OF THE TUOLUMNE 

PUBLIC POWER AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES, 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HONORABLE JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, CHAIRMAN 

ON H.R. 1!106, 

TO AMEND THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 20, 1995 

This testimony is jointly offered by Dennis Dickman, General 

Manager of the Calaveras Public Power Agency (CPPA), and Dominic N. 

Salluce, Agency Coordinator of the Tuolumne Public Power Agency 

(TPPA). 

CPPA and TPPA are located in California and are "first 

preference" electrical power customers of the Federal Central 

Valley Project (CVP), and our interest in H.R. 1906 relates to that 

preference power entitlement. We are concerned that our preference 

power entitlement, which was intended by Congress as a quid pro quo 

for the physical and economic impacts of the New Melones Project of 

the CVP on Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, will be adversely 

affected by CVP operational changes presumably implemented under 

authority of the provisions of the central Valley Project 

Improvement Act of 1992 mandating certain environmental purposes 

and benefits. 

The Flood Control Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874) authorized 

development of the New Melones dam and power plant, and provided 

that first preference to power be given to public agencies located 
223 

within the counties affected by construction of the dam and 

reservoir, those being, Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties. In 1982, 

the CPPA and TPPA were formed to make beneficial use of this power 

entitlement. CPPA and TPPA are comprised of 57 local public 

agencies including cities and counties, school, water, public 

utility, sanitary, fire, and other special districts. A list of 

the 57 member agencies is attached hereto. 

The U.S. Congress granted a first preference to power for 

Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties to mitigate, in part, the negative 

physical and economic impacts of the New Melones Project. These 

impacts include the loss of substantial private acreage and the 

consequent loss of resource production and taxes from these lands; 

a loss of local, Foothill and Mountain Counties, water and power 

production resources to outside interests; a reduction in Federal 

cost-sharing for recreational improvements at New Melones 

Reservoir; a loss in whitewater rafting opportunities; and 

increased local expenses to support emergency response services in 

the reservoir area such as sheriff, fire, ambulance, and search and 

rescue. 

The Flood Control Act of 1962 provides: 

That contracts for the sale and delivery of additional energy 

available from the Central Valley project power system as a 

result of the construction of the plants herein authorized and 

their integration with that system shall be made in accordance 

with preferences as expressed in the Federal reclamation laws 

except that a first preference, to the extent as needed and as 

2 
224 

fixed by the Secretary of the Interior but not to exceed 25 

per centum of such additional energy, shall be given under 

reclamation law, to preference customers in Tuolumne and 

Calaveras Counties, California. 

The CPPA and TPPA annual power entitlement to 123,000,000 kwh 

and associated capacity is based upon historical Stanislaus River 

hydrology and production of an average annual energy generation 

from New Melones of 492,000,000 kwh. This entitlement should not 

be adversely affected by provisions of the CVPIA, by any subsequent 

USBR redeterminations of New Melones• firm yield, or by other 

possibilities such as a transfer of the CVP or WAPA from Federal 

ownership. 

The CVPIA of 1992 requires that 800,000 af of CVP yield be 

utilized for environmental purposes -- approximately 200,000 af of 

which has been designated by USBR and USFWS to be drawn from New 

Melones -- which could potentially have the effect of reducing New 

Melones power production. We have never been able to get an 

explanation of what the effect of CVPIA-modified New Melones 

releases for downstream environmental enhancements has been on 

power production. 

The Calaveras and Tuolumne County entitlement to an average 

annual generation of 123,000,000 kwh and associated capacity was a 

qui d pro quo for the physi cal and economic impacts to these two 

counties, and it is simply unfair to change the Government's 

obligation by subsequent enactments and adm i nistrative actions. 

3 
225 

Furthermore, the Counties need the benefits of this economic 

source of power more than ever. The purchase of Central Valley 

Project power saves CPPA and TPPA public agency customers 

approximately $2.5 million per year in comparison to the. area's 

private utility rates (which are 50% higher than the national 

average). This savings helps reduce the costs of providing 

essential public facilities and services. This savings is critical 

to local governmental units which are feeling a tremendous cost 

squeeze from Federal and state mandated programs. In California 

the problem is further exacerbated by a "tax shift" crises, whereby 

the State government has been stripping-off county and special 

district revenues to supplement its general fund revenues. 

CPPA and TPPA would therefor greatly appreciate your 

Subcommittee's consideration of including in H.R. 1906 the attached 

legislative language to protect our preference power entitlement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue of 

critical importance to the CPPA and TPPA. 

4 
226 

CVPIA PREFERENCE CUSTOMER LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE 

Nothwithstanding the provisions of the CVPIA of 1992, or any 

amendments to that or any other law, the first preference 

entitlement of the Counties of Calaveras and Tuolumne, California 

to CVP power shall be 12J,OOO,OOO kwh of electrical energy and 

associated firm capacity. 
227 

Calaveras Public Power Agem;y 

Member Agencies 

Altaville/Melones Fire Protection District 

Bret Harte Union High School District 

Calaveras County Office of Education 

Calaveras Countv Water District 

Calaveras Public Utilitv District 

Calaveras Unified School District 

Citv of Angels 

Countv of Calaveras 

Ebbett s Pass Fire Protection District 

Ebbetts Pass Veterans Memorial District 

jennv Lind Fire Protection District 

lennv Lind Veterans Memorial District 

Mark Twain Hospital District 

Mark Twain Union Elementarv School District 

Mokelumne Hill Fire Protection District 

l'vlokelumne Hill Sanitarv District 

Murphvs Fire Protection District 

Murphvs Sanitarv District 

San Andreas Fire Protection District 

San Andreas Recreation and Parks District 

San Andreas Sanitarv District 

39th District Agricultural Association 

Union Public Utilitv District 

Vallecito Union School District 

Vallev Springs Public Utilitv District 

Vallev Springs Sanitarv District 

West Point Fire Protection District 

CPPA. TPPA & CCWD- April 26, 1995, Meeting wi1h U.S Congressman John Doolittle 
228 

Tuolum11e Public Power Agmry 

Member Agmcies 

County of Tuolumne 

Citv of Sonora 

Tuolumne Utilities District 

Groveland CommunitY Services District 

T. C. Water District No. l 

Jamesto\\11 Sanitarv District 

Tuolumne Sanitarv District 

Mono Village Water District 

Mother Lode Fairgrounds 

Twain Harte Park & Recreation District 

Columbia Fire District 

Jamestmm Fire District 

l\1i-Wuk Fire District 

Twain Harte Fire District 

Tuolumne Fire District 

Columbia Communitv College 

Superintendent of Schools 

Sonora High School 

Summerville High School 

Bdlview School 

Chinese Camp School 

Columbia School 

Curtis Creek School 

Groveland-Big Oak Flat School 

I amestown School 

Sonora Elementarv School 

Sousbvville School 

Summerville School 

Twain Harte School 

Countv Special Education 

CPPA, TPPA & CCWD April 26, 1995. Meeting \\1th U.S. Congressman fohn Doolittle 
229 

BOARD Of' SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT 825 5TH STREET 

EUREKA, CALIF'ORNIA 95501·1172 PHONE C707J 44-5·7471 

July 18, 1995 

The Honorable John Doolittle, Chairman 

Subcommittee of Energy and Water, Committee on 

Natural Resources, 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building, Am 1526 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Transmitted via FAX and mail 

Re: HR1906 (Doolittle)-Proposed Amendments to the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (P.L. 1 02-575). 

Dear Congressman Doolittle, 

We request this letter be entered into the subcommittee hearing 

record for HR 1906. 

In 1992, Humboldt County supported passage of the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The Board of Supervisors took this 

position because the Central Valley Project reforms contained in the 

legislation would have a direct beneficial effect on the county's sport, 

commercial and Indian salmon fisheries. As you should know, the welfare 

of our salmon fishermen is directly linked to the condition of salmon 

populations in the Sacramento River (historically, over 75% of the salmon 

caught by the Northcoast's sport and commercial ocean come from the 

Sacramento River) and Trinity River, both of which are key water sources 

of the CVP. The commercial and sport salmon fisheries are an important 

component of our county's economy. 

Provisions of the CVPIA: require an equitable redistribution of CVP 

water, recognizing fishery resources are an equally important beneficial 

use of the water; establish a meaningful fishery (and wildlife) restoration 
230 

program; and subject agriculture water delivery contracts to a reasonable 

process of environmental review in order to insure contract renewals are 

consistent with fishery protection and restoration goals and objectives. 

Other CVPIA provisions establish minimum fishery maintenance flows in 

the Trinity River, which flows through our county, and a procedure for 

future upward adjustments if warranted by findings of the 1996 Flow 

Decision. 

We are aware that you have introduced HR 1906, a bill which would 

amend the CVPIA in a multitude of very fundamental ways. An analysis of 

the bill reveals that the bill-which, by the way, we understand was 

authored by the Central Valley Project Water Association-would eliminate 

or neutralize what we consider to be the Act's most important elements. 

In regard to the Trinity River amendments, proposed changes would make 

establishment of essential Trinity River fishery maintenance flows more 

problematic by injecting an additional, redundant bureaucratic layer of 

review into the process and severely limit the ability of area of origin 

counties to successfully ajudicate the 1996 Flow Decision. 

Other fishery damaging amendments proposed in HR 1906 would: 

• Literally define out of existence the 800,000 acre feet of water 

dedicated to fisheries restoration (except for water required to meet 

new Bay-Delta standards). 

Eliminate the anadromous fisheries doubling program required by the 

CVPIA. 

• Kill the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan required by the CVPIA. 

This plan would merely study options to partially or fully restore the 

now-dry upper San Joaquin River, just below Friant Dam. Some of these 

options would result in no reduction of water to Friant water users. 

The Act did not authorize any release of water to implement the Plan 

without explicit Congressional action. H.R. 1906 would also override 

state law and prevent the state from ever considering San Joaquin 

River restoration. 

• Delete the requirement that 213 of the CVPIA restoration fund be used 

for habitat restoration such as purchasing water for the environment. 

The amendment would allow all of the fund to be used for facilities 

which primarily benefit CVP contractors, rather than the environment. 

Reducing the ability of the fund to purchase environmental water would 

2 
231 

be particularly devastating given proposed amendments to the 

environmental water dedicated by other sections of the Act. 

• State that merely by "pursuing• restoration actions, the Secretary shall 

be deemed to have satisfied the CVP's environmental obligations. The 

CVP would thus be required to meet contractors' needs and merely to 

pursue restoration, with no requirement to achieve actual results. 

In our view, HR 1906 is nothing more than a cynical attempt by a 

greedy minority of CVP water users to intentionally sacrifice the 

equitable reforms of the CVPIA that require the protection and restoration 

of public trust salmon and steelhead fishery resources of the Trinity, 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in order to profit from regaining 

control of the CVP's water. We want to be perfectly clear: a consequence 

of this environmental mugging will be the perpetuation of the economic 

hardship visited upon our county by the devastating declines CVP affected 

fish stocks have experienced over the last three decades-this is a totally 

unacceptable price you expect our county to bear. As you can surmise, we 

are strongly opposed to passage of HR 1906 and will urge our 

congressional representatives to oppose it. 

cc: Congressman Frank Riggs 

Senator Diane Feinstein 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

3 

:~~ly~,:~~~--- STAN DIXON, C air 

Board of Supervisors 
232 

w 

July 18, 1995 

By Fax (202) 225-5444 

Chairman John T. Doolittle 

House, Water and Power Resources Subcommittee 

House Resources Committee 

1337 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Doolittle: 

Re: HR 1906- CVPIAReformAct of 1995 

.\ 

I am aware that hearings on HR 1906 are scheduled in Washington, D.C. on Jwy 20, 1995. While 

I have not sought to participate at these hearings, I am hopeful that you will include this letter in the 

record, and that the Committee will consider the substance of our request when the bill is further 

considered in the legislative process. 

I am writing on behalf of the Delta Wetlands Project, a unique water supply project being developed 

with private sector financing and expertise, rather than by government agencies using public fuods. 

I have attached an ovecview of the project for your records. The project, once completed, witl 

provide a unique blend of new water supply and conservation benefits, and be accomplished wholly 

by the private sector. 

Our specific concern relates to Section 3408( c) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (P .L. 

!02-575). A small part of that subsection threatens harm to the private sector, appears to be 

unintentional, serves no valid purpose, and can easily be remedied by a brief amendment to the Act. 

Section 3408 (copy attached) provides general authority for the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 

contracts with a broad range of interests for the ·'exchange, impoundment, storage, carriage, and 

delivery of Central Valley Project and non-project water" for a number of purposes 

Interestingly, and for reasons which are not made clear either in the statutory language or in the 

legislative history for the provision, such transactions are limited only to private nonprofit 

organiz.ations, to the apparent exclusion of private organizations for profit Under this provision at 

least, the entire business sector is excluded from entering into contracts with the Secretary to supply 

services or facilities with respect to Central Valley Project and non-project water. 

This incongruous provision in the CVPIA impairs or eliminates a significant market for private 

entrepreneurs dealing in water, in water facilities, or in services related to water, and substantially 

lti~fl \h. lli;>(tlo l!llf1 

1d '.1(}.'/S:iA:llh 

~~" ~ol0.2SCHU2i! 

ll 
Chairman John T" Doolittle 

July 18. 1995 

Page 2 

233 

discourages private investment in water developmenL Such a result does not seem consistent with 

emerging policies seeking to lift unnecessary and uljjustified restrictions on the private sector lndeed, 

the restriction does not seem to be based on any identifiable purpose< 

The problem can be resolved quite readily< An amendment which delet.,. the word "nonprofit~ from 

subsection (c) would create no penalty to nonprofit interests which would remain able to contract 

with the Secretary, but would broaden the authorization to allow other interests in the private sector 

to contract, including these which operate for profit< Wben amendments to HR 1906 are taken up 

in the Subcommittee, I am hopeful that the Committee will consider removing this unnecessary 

limitation on contracting by the private sector. 

I thank you very much for your consideration of this request 

~ s]r·;rild-

'!0~ L Winther:4ft· 

President 

t JLWkf 

Enclosures 

cc: Congressman Wally Herger ·By Fax (202) 225-3245 

no enclosures 

be: Mr< Guy Martin- Perkins Coie 

Ms" Anne Schneider - Ellison & Schneider 

no enclosures 
234 

lll.t;. Jlnun of Jltprtarntatiuts 

~ommlttee on 1\.esources 

DaBI:lington. J)C 20515 

August 2, 1995 

The Hon. Joim T. Doolittle 

Chainnan, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources 

Committee on Resources 

1337 Longworth H.O.B. 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am enclosing several items pertaining to the Subcommittee's consideration ofH.R. 1906. 

I request that these items be included in the official record of the hearing. If this hearing 

record will be printed, I request that these items be included in the printed record as well. 

The items are as follows: 

1 July 20, 1995 letter from Rodney M. Fujita, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, EnvironmentaJ 

Defense Fund, Oakland, CA; 

2. July 21, 1995 editorial of the San Francisco Chronicle, ~unraveling the Peace in State 

Water Wars"; 

3. July 21, 1995 article by Michael Doyle from The Sacramento Bee, ~'92 Water Law 

Under Pressure"; 

4. July 23, 1995 editorial of the San Francisco Chronicle, UBreaking the Peace in the 

Water Wars~; 

5. July 27, 1995 editorial of the Los Angeles Times, "Let the Water Wars Cool Off'; 

6. August I, 1995 editorial of the San Jose Mercury News, "Water Wherefore". 

Ranking Democratic Member 
ENVIAONMENrAL 

D£FEN$E FUND 

235 

---------------- July 20, 1995 

Edi.tor 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco. CA 94103-2988 

To the Editor: 

Colifornill otfl« 

Rockrtdee Mwket Holl 

5655 Collese Ave. 

Ookland. CA 9461 & 

(S I 0) 658-8008 

l'oz: 510-658-0630 

This year's big salmon catch is truly cause for celebration ("Fishery Strategies Paying Off", 

July 19, 1995). However. the bountiful harvest shouldn't lull us into a false sense of security about 

the health of our wild s:;lmon or the health of the Bay-Delta and Central Valley ecosystems upon 

which they - and we -- depend. 

In recent year~. California's rich salmon fishery hasbeen based primarily on hatchery-raised 

fall run chinook, paid for by the highly succe.qsful salmo_n stamp prograin. The wild salmon that on~ 

[lln plentifully in the spring. the fall, the late fall, and the winter used the natural ecosystems of the 

Bay-Delta and Centml Valley year-round. This provided crucial insurance against the effects of 

pericot.fk d1 oughts. re,inccd oce-m productivity, and other natural environmental changes. However, 

dams. water diver~ions, pollution. and ot~cr factors have combined to destroy the habitats of our wild 

salmon rons, severely reducing the effectiveness of nature's insurance policy and leaving California's 

salmon fishery prim11rily dependent on hatchery-reared stocks. 

For the last three years, West Coast salmon have suffered from a la.c.k of food in the ocean, a 

n·sult of unusually low ocean productivity associated with a string of El Nines. Improved ocean 

prorluctivity off California's coast may explain, in part. the tremendous harvest of hatchery raised 

snlmon this year. But the fact that fish raised in California hat.:heries are very abundant in this year of 

good ocean produc!ivity while wild fish are not tells us that the natural ecosystems that suppon wild 

salmon -- spawning streams, rivers, wetlands, shallow waters, and the estuary -· are still in poor shape. 

The restoration of thes¢ natural ecosystems. in combination with the wise use of hatcheries and 

approp1iate harvest !Tlonagement measures, is the key to a bealthy salmon fishery over the long run 

and to the restoration of our region's noble wild salmon. 

Sincerely, 

0----=----d; /IJ -~~ Rodney M. Fujita, Ph.D -- Seni' Scientist 

·······--------------- z:;1 p;u-t t\ VM1Jt South 

N~w Y¢al:. Nl' l<XllO 

(2 1'2.) :SOS-2 IOO 

i87S C~Iku• Avt,. ~tW. 

\\o'.::shinljton. DC 2:0009 !Z02) lS?-3500 

i.OS Af."'pAh« Ave. 

Boulder. CO 80302 

()~)) 440-4901 

i2S E.1st Hafie« St. 

R.lcigh, NC 17601 

(919) &21-1793 

1800 Ou.>da!UP< 

Austin. TX ?a7ot (Sl2J478-Sl61 
236 

~an lfranci~co (!~rouidt THE VOICE OF TilE WF.Sr 

Unraveling the Peace 

In State Water Wars 

'

HE BROAD. all-encompassing sweep 

of opposition to a leglslative proposal 

to gut the 1992 Central Valley Project 

water reforms, eVIdent In congressional 

hearings yesterday, offers dramatic proof 

ot the fUndamental soundness of the orJgt. 

Dill reforms and the broad·based consensus that produced them. 

That hlstorlc achievement, which for the 

ftrst time extended the benefits of the 

DooUttle's 

bUlwould. 

undo a 

consensus on 

water it took 

years of 

lidtriful effort 

to achieve 

state's massive fed· 

era! water system 

to all stakeholders - agricultural, ur· ban and environ· 

mental - must be 

preserved Intact 

and protected 

against the greed of narrow special 

Interests that 

would profit from 

renewlne Call!or· 

nla's water wars. The leglslatlon 

to reverse the 1992 

reforms Is the work of Representative John 

Doollttle, R . .Sacramento, who serves as leg· 

!Jiatlve handmaiden for a small group of 

wealthy agrJeultural Interests In the San 

Joaquin Valley. This subset offederal water 

clintractors has never been able to accept 

the 1992 law's modest limitations on their 

traditional water subsidies and privilegesreforms that were crafted to spread some of 

the benefits of federally subsidized water to 

cities, businesses, flsh and wildlife. 

The Doolittle bUI's baekel'l represent the 

radical fringe of a diverse group of farmers 

depmdent on Central Valley Project water, 

Including many who have reconciled them· 

selves to working within the 1992 refonns. 

The support of many of those fanners 

for the existing law wu reatftrmecl this 

week by Tom Haller, dlreetor of the Com· 

munlty Alliance With Family Fannel'l, who 

argued that "It II better to work with Ule 

existing leglslatlon In the Implementation 

process, which we bave found to be flexible 

and open, rather than radically chang& tt In 

a way that will undermine its Intent." 

Haller's group, llke flsb.lDg associations, 

business groups and urban water districts, 

has had specific complaJnts about the lm· 

plementatlon and Interpretation of the 1992 

reforms. But most have concluded, correct· 

ly, that any changes should be accompUsh· 

ed administratively and "through a consen· sus-based process of all stakeholders," as Roger Thomas, president of the Gol4en 

Gate Fisherman's Association put !t. 

I ndeed, the only major interest that does 

not totally reject the Doolittle "reforms" are the big urban dl.!trlcts, Including San 

Francisco. which oppose the basic thrUst of 

the legislation but are W!ll1ng to negotiate 

limited amendments. 

That approach - seeking a reasonable 

compromise with a group that baa never shown any interest In compromise or cooperation - Is playing with fire. As Sunne 

Wright McPeak, head of the Bay Area Economic Forum argued: "Amending the (!awl 

at this critical juncture would ... jeopardize 

the mutual trust that has developed among 

all of the different players." 

That broad, consensua-bued approach 

has served Cal!fornta well. It Is vital that all 

the major Interests stick with it. 
237 

WASHINGTON 

.# 

~'92 ~a:t.er law under pressu~~: City interests Join fanners in calling for new Central Valley ~iici 

·By Michael Doyle 

Boo WIOiilJDI'oa ~" 

. WASHINGTON- California's 

poUtically potent urban water dill· 

tricta V\liced: IIUPport Thurt!day for 

Jegialat!ve ehal\ge• in a 1992 

.western -ternform law. 

This amounta to a mutuel delionse pact with Central Valley 

fanners, who lnitiall,y drafted the 

·new leplation. It means farmers 

. are no longer i110J.te<l, but are po-

.t.entially allied again with t.gen· 

.cies serving two·thirdl of the 

state's reaidenta. 

Thahllianc:e still m1111t neroti· ate important c:liCferences over what specific l'hanpa are needed in tho 1992 law reforming tho Central Valley Project. It lllao 

·must survive a skeptical-Senate 

and the partisanship that flared 

·Thursday at a House aubcomrnit· 

tee hearing. ·. The politically significant devel· 

:opment, however, is the urban·ru· 

r,al consensus that new law is 

'again needed ror the CVP'a Redd· 

ing·to·Bakerafield grid of dame, 

canala and power plants. "After three years of experiencs, 

~~'" do believe both lesislative and 'adminiatrativ• chonges are re- quired," aa.id Timothy Quinn, deputy seneral manaser ofthe Metro- politan Water District of Southern 

California. "''bero are problems to 

be oolved." 

The 1992 law, written and 

pa.ased with the Metropolitan WaThe (Clinton) " 

administration is 

concerned that 

reopening the (law) 

will lead to the return 

of gridlock in 

California's water 

policies. 

~ 

Dan Beard 

Butt•u of R«iasnt.tloll 

ter Distriot's help, dedicates more CVP water to rl&h and wildlife ,..,.. 

toration. It guart~.ntees water supplies to refuges, cha~ farm- era an extra fee to fund environ· 

mental work and elimlnat..s the 

right to perpetual renewal of irri• 

ption contracts. 

Environmental groups and the Clinton adminiatration believe th" 1992 law ia ati!l too new to 

change, with outgoing Bureau of Reclamation Commisaionor Dan Beard telling a House panel 

Thursday that lel:islaUve ehanees an "premature and unnecessary." 

"The administration is con· 

cerned that reopening the (!awl 

... will lead to tho return of grid· 

lock in California'• water pOli• 

ciea," l:lurd taatified before the House watar and pOWer lQOUI'CI!II 

aubcom'mittee chllired by Rep. John Doolittle, R·Roeklin. • Beard helped write the 19~ 

lew as a House ltll£fer. He'• leal!! 

ing his bureau position by Sell" 

tembcr, however, and hie p*. 

posed replacement ia a civil. •!Iii-: neer with a reputation more for 

compromise and eonsenll\18 thaD 

environmental advocacy . Moreover, the bureau is already 

making adminiatrative concea, 

tiona - for instance, clarii'yin;i 

that water meters are not re- quirod on renewed contracts:,-·. lil· 

Emboldened by the Republic:all 

tak.eovor of Congress, Valley Ia~ 

makers earlier. this year intr~ 

duced their· package of refine· mants to the 1992law. ~ 

The new legi,dation authored by 

Doolittle and others would rein- state the guaranteed 26-year nnewal of irrigation con~rac ...... eliminate a study of ret!terlng- ; 

Son Joaquin River, eep fl.· · • feea and make other changea. ,, : 

Urban agencies, from tha S&nla 

Clara Valley Water Dietrict in·tt.e north to the San Diego Co1,iDty 

Water Authority in the aou.th; aii.· nounced aupport Thuroday (or· 

several key coneepta In the bill Theae include an end to tiered 

pricing, under which farmers pay more for using more water, and a 

notum to guaranteed water con· tract ronowela. .......... 
238 

-· ~an l'ranti~to (t'~ronitlt THE VOICE OF THE WEST 

lmi'ORIALS 

·"~·.t.:f\• 

:~~1!ea~;ng. the Peace 

'In the Water Wars 

THE LONG and d.estruetive Cal!forn1a 

water war, which was qUieted by a letllible leil'lattve cease-fire three 

yeua aao, ls on the verge of ful.l·seale re- ~~~.mption, t1wlks to the unquenchable IteM and incurable myopia of Central Val· 

ley &Jric:ultural tnteri!StJ 111d tbeJ.r water· 

Clttle1'1 1n . Coller-. Unless Senators Dl· 

anne FeiDsteln and Barbara Boxer take a 

The state's 

economy 

. couldbe 

swept back 

tntoa 

dcingerous 

political 

whirlpool 

flrm stand against 

these troublemak· en when their leg· 

islative assault 

reaches the upper 

house, Cal!fornJ.a 

eould be swept 

back Into a polltl· cal wbirlpool th.tt 

will threaten not 

only the environ· 

Ilient but the 

lt&te's fragile eco- nomic recovery. 

. The new decla· 

ration of war . comes 1n the form of lqlllationlntroduced thls week by Representative John Doolittle 

and other Central Valley representatives 

that aeets to overtum the 1992 Central Val· 

ley Proleet Implementatlcm Act, 1!gned lnto 

law by President Bush. 'lbat law brought 

badly needed reform to 111 archaic and ex· pemlve system of rubsld!zed farm trrtga. 

t1on that had wreaked diluter on the aquat· 

1c env1ronment and nearly de.stroyed the 

commercW fllhinl lndiiJ'Iey. 

y-DooUttle'a rear-pard attack would "refOllll" thou reforms by, among other ,·" ., 

things: strtpplng them of v1rtuaUY"it'tlie" ' ' 

additional water tbat had been prO!Iille4 · for fish and wildlife restoration; ellmlrlat· 

lng a study of fisheries 1n the San .Joaquin 

River; restoring overly generous. .ubtidlz. . ed, 40-year water delivery conu.• to 

growers; reducing fees for an en~· 

tal fund; scrapping a r.equlr'ementfor.doubllng the salmon populations; l1ld tiU'Dlng 

fish restoration proiiJ'I.IDS over to the ltlte. 

Save San Frandsco Bay Assoda'lion director Barry Nelson called the DooUttle bill 

"the legislative eqUivalent of a drtve-by 

shooting," a mtement that retl•ttlu~;."' 

depth of dlVlsiveness thls legls).ation''llOIIld re-engender. Indeed, until the Republlcau~ 

captul'ed Congress 1a.st November, a productive II fraifie procesa of cooperatlcm was groWing among the lt&te's competing 

water interests - farmers. env!ronmentallsts and urban user~. 

1 be main fruit of tbat eollSellSI1JW'I.ut · 

whleh 

fall's 

dealt 

voluntary 

With lmprovtng Bay-Delta watei . ~ 'Qftll1ty 

standards for fish and wildlife ln the 4tl.ta 

and bay In order to meet CleanWa~.~ and Endangered Species Act reqllitti:iiimta. 

But the Bay-Delta Accord wu built on the 

framework of the Central Valley Pl'oJeet 

reformsofl992. Ifthouareptted, thelllH 

water quality accords and the Jt&te water . board's brand new water alloeatlcm PlaU 

would become virtUally meaningless. 

Senators Feinstein and Boxer n,r-t · the best hope for dlaarml:llg these unrecon· structed water wamora 10 tbai.~Y.­

senslble poUdes llld Predlctabl~ .. may prevallln C&Utoml.a. . 
239 

LOS ANOEU!S TIMBS THURSDAY. ltJLY 27. l99S 

Let the Water Wars Cool Off 

In .. California, . Mark Twain said 

about a hund~ y~ ago, whlakey II 

for drlnkln' and water II for flgbtln'. 

For most of thla •tate's recent hiltorY. 

that Indeed hu been the eue, With 

farmers fighting etty folks and· Northern california fighting South- ern California over what in this 

l&rgely arid 1tate is a precious re- IOUfce. 

In the l&st eouple of years, however, poUUeal Infighting baa died down 

tlwlka to a aerie. of reuonable and 

farsighted eompromltcs, chlef aniong 

them a mucll-needed reform of how 

the state'• blggeat man-made water aource opuata. That aource II the 

Central Valley PrOject. a series of 

dam1 and canall built by the federal 

government In the 19301 to bring river water from the north to farlnlln 

the.OuthernSanJoaquln VaUey. For almott two generation~ Ute 

CVP sold heavily 1ublidlud water to tarse and &Om~!l!\lellnefficient f.vml. even in time~ wben California' a ciUea were 1trUU(Ing tbro1.11h drought. 

That finally bepn to change in 1992 

when President George Bush signed a law Intended to bring a meuure of 

free-market economict to CVP oper- atltma. Among other thingl it allowed 

farmers to sell their surplus water to eltla and set more realistic rules for long-term water eontraets, shorten- ing them from 40 to 2S years and 

requiring that they be reVIewed after 

tltey lapse rather than being renewed 

automlti\'&UY. Since that l&w went into effect. it seems to have worked reasonably 

well. although aome technical fine- tuning hu been suggested. That, unfortunately, II not good enough for some agrlbulinea interests and San J01quln Valley water districts that 

were never happy with the CVP 

reform law in the first place. They want the new Republican majority In Congress to limply ~rap the whole reform law, and they have prodded a number of Congrm members from tile Centnl Valley, chiefly Rep. John 

T. Doolittle (R-Rocklandl. to push 

legtelatlon that <llff• jult that. Doolittle's bill. HR 1808."!111DW before 

the House lllbeommt«ee on water 

and power resouree~-wbere It 

should dle. The CVP reform law Ia too new to require any rcwrltlnf. It abould be 

monitored. to be lure, and where 

neceaary modified lldminllll'atively 

by the federal govmllilent 111 c:onsultat!on with the affected part!ea. But . reopening the ye.lli!WDB J!gOtl&· 

tiona that resulted'rn& CVP law II 

politically unwise. mtWoU!cllead to tile reopening of other pollUeal water fllhta, not least amo111 them tile even more eomplex compromiae on water 

quality tn San Frandloo and tile 

Sacramento River Delta, ,-(he ttate'a 

bluest natural source ·of water. If 

DooiiUle and otlter llhortalghted folkl 

in tile Contra! Vaii•Y>~Pt their way, the cynical wl!ldom·11f..llarit; 'l'wlln'a 

Wit will be proved for another hun· dred yean. A popul~ and inereuinSIY urbanlJed Callt(ftla ctn't.tford 

that. 
240 
241 

House Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

July 20, 1995 

Statement by Representative Gary A. Condit 

18tb Congressional District, Califorula 

HR 1906 

Mr. Chairman and Members, 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments to you regarding HR 1906. I have 

looked forward to the day that Congress would hold a public hearing regarding the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, and the punitive impacts of this so-called 

"improvement" Act. 

As many of you know, I have had serious misgivings regarding the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act since it was passed by the Congress in 1992. I voted against the CVPIA. 

and am now pleased to join a bi-partisan group of California congressional members whose 

purpose is to remove some of the most punitive provisions of the CVPIA. and to bring some 

balance into our water delivery system. 

The CVPIA of 1992 originally passed out of the then House Narurai Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power based upon the protnise that good faith honest 

negotiations would continue in order to craft a piece of legislation that would be acceptable 

to the farming community. Without that promise, this measure would 112! have passed out of 

the committee. I was not a memlx:r of the then House Natural Resources Committee that 

wrote the bill, and I voted against it when it came before the full House, because those 

honest negotiations never did occur. As we all know, the proponents of sO-called "reform" 

were never seriously interested in a balanced approach to this issue, and the result has been a 

"regulatory drought" of unprecedented proportions. 

We now have unique opportunity to revisit the CVPIA and remove some of its non-sensical 

provisions, as well as to restructure it in such a way as to bring about the badly needed 

certainty of water supply to agriculture. HR 1906 would accomplish this by: 

- Repealing the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, thereby ending the 

threat of the San Joaquin River Restoration plan; 

-Providing for assurances that no more than 800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield 

would be taken for environmental purposes by crediting water taken for the 

Endangered Species Act and Bay-Delta water standards toward the 800,000 

acre obligation for environmental purposes; 
242 

- Repealing tiered-pricing requirements that act as disincentives for ground 

water recharge efforts; 

-Allowing the environmental Restoration Fund to be used for physical "fixes" 

to the CVP that would benefit the environment while also improving water 

deliveries; 

- Requiring water district approval for out of project transfers; 

- Providing for successive renewals of 25 years for long-term contract 

renewals. Two and three year interim contracts (pending the completion of the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) would be streamlined with a 

single interim renewal. 

The severe and unwarranted economic hardship faced by our agricultural communities cannot 

continue. HR 1906 would meet most of the environmental goals provided for under the 1992 

Act without also imposing the u!UieCessary and severe adverse costs that have been incurred 

by CVP customers and the public during the last two years. 

This legislation brings balance and certainty to the system by addressing California's 

agricultural, urban and environmental water needs. I look forward to working with this 

Subcommittee, as well lOS with the full Congress on restructuring this Act to ensure that these 

goals are accomplished in a fair and reasonable manner. 
United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources 

The Honorable John Doolittle, Chairman 

Statement of the Central Valley Project Water Association 

20July 1995 

Washington, DC 

The federal Central Valley Project (CVP) serves agricultural, municipal and industrial 

water customers throughout the Central Valley of California from Redding to Bakersfield. CVP 

contractors have a responsibility to provide reliable and affordable water service to over 20,000 

farms on three million acres of the nation's most productive farmland, and to two million 

households and industrial water users. Meeting these responsibilities is the most critical charge to 

the CVP's contractor/customers. However, in addition to water service and flood control the 

CVP (a multi·purpose project) has significant environmental obligations • chiefly and most 

recently, those enumerated and outlined in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 

(P.L. 102·575, title 34; "CVPIA") and the 15 December 1994 Bay/Delta principles agreement. 

Having closely participated in literally hundreds of "interest·group• meetings and two and 

one· half years of attempts at interpretation and implementation by the respollSlole federal agencies 

(primarily the Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service), it is abundantly clear that 

additional direction is necessary to make the CVPIA work efficiently and properly. While there 

may be existing authority to make or establish CVPIA implementation directions at the 

administrative level there are clearly areas where additional authority or changes in current 

legislative mandates are required if the CVPIA is to be e$ciently and appropriately implemented. 

Further, even where there is existing authority to take action or make policy with regard to 

CVPIA implementation, the federal agencies have been reluctant to act accordingly due to lack of 

clear Congressional narrative (report language) establishing what is meant/was intended by certain 

CVPIA provisions. 

HR. 1906 maintains the spirit and substance of the CVPIA with respect to environmental 

protection, restoration and mitigation. At the same time, it also clearly excises those provisions of 

the CVPIA which are patently punitive in nature and have no intended or reasonably expected 

environmental benefit. In essence, amending the CVPIA through the provisions of HR. 1906 will 

provide the foundation necessary for timely and efficient implementation of environmental 

improvements to CVP facilities and operations and will achieve a proper balance among the 

Project's purposes and obligations. For these fundamental reasons and for those outlined below, 

we appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to the critical issues addressed by this legislation and 

strongly support passage ofHR 1906. 

CVPW A Sllllement Page t • 20 July t 99S 
Regardless of HR 1906's legislative status, the CVP will meet its Bay/Delta water quality 

obligations (under the Clean Water Act) and its federal and state ESA obligations. In reality, the 

amendments to the CVPIA will provide a clearer connection between these various mandates by 

focusing the law and its environmental improvements on upstream and in-refuge environmental 

improvements and Project operations changes for fish and wildlife benefits (i.e., rather than three 

overlapping mandates, the CVPlNCVPRA and ESA will get the fish born and to the Delta, then 

the Bay/Delta V¥ill get the fish raised and through the Delta to the ocean - and the reverse when 

the fish return) This is an effort to focus scarce resources and to speed up implementation of 

actual protection, mitigation and restoration activities and programs. 

The proposed legislative changes to the CVPIA are intended to be consistent with 

environmental improvements under the 15 December Bay/Delta agreement and more efficient use 

of finite water and financial resources in the Central Valley. Further, by focusing CVPIA efforts 

towards identification of key environmental needs (salmon and steelhead runs, for example) and 

towards timely implementation of programs and activities, it is intended that real environmental 

improvement will be realized more quickly and efficiently. For instance, by removing the issue of 

accounting for the 800 "~AF from debate, resources can be focused on coordinating CVPIA, 

Bay/Delta and ESA floy, .111d timing requirements such that maximum benefit is derived and the 

water is most efficiently used. 

Furthermore, by focusing "fish doubling" resources on coordinating efforts with the State 

program (to which all water and power projects in the state are obligated), previously identified 

mitigation and restoration activities can be immediately implemented rather than waiting for a 

stand-alone federal program to be developed. Further, many of the "Category m• actions in the 

Bay/Delta agreement which provide for upstream protection, restoration or mitigation may be the 

same as or similar to CVPIA upstream or through-Deha "fish fixes• Again, by targeting 

resources on "what we already know of and can do", we will be moving closer to the goals of the 

CVPIA, the state doubling goal and the Bay/Deha agreement with regard to fishery protection, 

mitigation and restoration. 

800,000 acre-feet ofCVP Water 

The criticism that HR 1906 would "define the 800,000 acre-feet out of existence" is based 

on the notion that the 800 KAF should not be counted if it docs not reduce contract deliveries, 

regardless of year type or whether the purpose for which it is used has been achieved (i.e., it has 

to hurt contractors to be credited to the CVPIA obligation). However, the 800 KAF was not 

intended to be punitive to contractors. To the contrary, multiple uses of this water was, and is, 

encouraged (again, consistent with the Bay!Dela Agreement). The amendments end the debate 

over accounting for the 800 KAF and place an obligation on the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

determine fish needs and priorities such that the Project will be reoperated to meet these needs. 

Once the reserved water has done its job for the environment, it can be diverted or reused if 

possible. 

CVPW A Swement Page 2 - 20 July 199~ 
245 

Under current law, the Bureau and US Fish and Wildlife Service are to dedicate and 

manage 800 KAF of CVP "yield" for fish and wildlife purposes. Substantial controversy has 

arisen over priorities and use of this 800 KAF, as well as an appropriate accounting method. The 

proposed revision would affirm the reservation and management of the 800 KAF, consistent with 

the 15 December 1994 Bay/Delta Agreement. The water would be available to meet CVP 

Bay/Delta and Federal ESA obligations. The proposed language would also clarify that the 800 

KAF can be reused or diverted to agricuhure or M&I purposes after it has ful.filled its 

environmental purpose. 

With regard to meeting Bay/Delta standards, since the focus of the CVPIA is upstream 

(and the focus of the Bay/Delta Agreement is in and through-Delta), it is appropriate that the 

focus of the 800 KAF be upstream not some generic "outflow" or "export restriction". This is not 

to say that an ecologically justifiable prescription, such as a pulse flow for the passage of a 

particular species not already protected by the Bay/Delta standards, would be limited or 

prohibited by the proposed change. 

Doubling Anadromous Fish Production 

The CVP only, federal only plan is being deleted AND REPLACED by a mandate that the 

federal government participate in a joint effort with the state and local agencies in meeting the 

goals of the Salmon", Steelhead Trout and Anadromous Ftsheries Program Act of 1988. That Act 

and subsequent Salmon and Steelhead reports by the CA Dept. of FISh and Game (CDFG) 

provided the basis for the "fish fixes" enumerated in the CVPIA As such, the Department of the 

Interior need not and should not be re-inventing a fish doubling program separate and distinct 

from the established State program This is a waste of valuable time and financial resource. 

The HR 1906 amendments are intended to accelerate the implementation of programs and 

activities that have already been identified and studied and have a reasonable potential for 

achieving fishery benefits. By establishing priorities based on identified needs of native species of 

concern (salmon and steelhead), immediate protection, mitigation and restoration actions can be 

undertaken. 

By authorizing and requiring the federal agencies to work jointly with the state of 

California, making the CVPIA fish doubling program a pan of the larger State program, the 

federal actions taken under authority of the HR 1906 fish doubling section can be better 

coordinated with the implementation ofBay/Deha water quality standards and the reservation and 

use of the 800,000 acre feet ofCVP water. 

Thus the proposed revision provides a nexus between federaVCVPIA "fish doubling" 

activities and State sponsored or required actions • eliminating potential redundancies and 

providing for timely and efficient implementation of activities and programs based on years of 

CDFGstudy. 

CVPW A Statement Page 3 • 20 July 1995 
246 

The Restoration Fund 

To date, an inordinate emphasis has been placed on Restoration Fund coUections. The 

ex-penditure side, from the perspective of greatest good for and the most critical need o~ the 

environment has been sorely neglected. Through elimination of the artificial 34/66 percent 

spending cap, it is intended that the Secretary will have greater discretion ill allocating Restoration 

funds to programs and activities from which the most benefit may derived. Concurrently, 

elimination of the SSO million hammer clause will eliminate a purely punitive aspect of the CVPIA 

which ill most years would likely result in creation of a deficit obligation 

The San Joaquin River 

In a fashion similar to the changes proposed for the "fish doubling plan", HR 1906 would 

take advantage of a significant body of ecological study recently completed under state law on the 

San Joaquin • focusing efforts and resmrrces on timely implementation of real environmental 

improvements. (Friant Division customers will continue to contnlmte millions of dollars to San 

Joaquin River mitigation and restoration efforts.) 

The Trinitv River 

Decades of work and tens of millions of dollars spent on study of the Trinity River system 

have yet to yield a comprehensive analysis of the system's needs. The amendments proposed ill 

HR 1906 are meant to establish the requirement for public participation and input into upcoming 

decisions regarding changes in the flow regime and other mitigation, protection or restoration 

activities identified for the Trinity by the environmental studies ongoing and due for completion. 

The CVPIA currently provides for firm water supplies to identified Central Valley wildlife 

refuges. The proposed legislative changes do not alter these amounts. The proposed changes do 

however, make provisions of refuge supplies ill to CVP operations and environmental obligations 

more consistent with mandates on other water uses by requiring the implementation of water 

management and conservation practices, an analysis of refuge needs, and by linking shortages to 

refuges to shortages imposed on other users in the same CVP division. 

The federal agencies' interpretation and implementation of the CVPIA transfer provisions 

has resulted in a hindrance rather than a help to efficient water transfers and management 

practices. The proposed legislative changes would enhance efficient water management practices 

within the CVP service area and transfers to outside of the service area and would pro·vide for 

greater water district oversight over proposed transfers using specific enumerated criteria in the 

light of potential adverse environmental and economic impacts. (Note: under these provisions, a 

district could not deny a proposal for transfer without justification.) 

CVPW A Statement Page 4 • 20 July 1995 
247 

Since enactment of the CVPIA onlv one water transfer from within the CVP to a nonCVP district outside the service area has be~n proposed (that proposal is no longer being pursued 

for reasons unrelated to the CYPIA). At the same time, numerous (environmentally and 

economically sound) intra-CVP water management transfers have been delayed or denied due to 

unnecessary imposition of CVPIA requirements. 

Contract Provisions 

The current three/two year interim contract renewal process has proven to be logistically 

and economically impractical, and provides no real environmental benefit. The proposed 

legislative changes would provide for a single interim renewal contract until the completion of the 

CVPIA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and appropriate site-specific 

environmental analysis. Contrary to critics' arguments that this and other proposed changes to the 

CVPIA contract provisions are somehow detrimental to the environment, this change will likely 

result in the timely completion of environmental analysis by freeing up federal resources -

ultimately resulting in contracts that reflect up to date and studied CVP environmental conditions. 

Further, the current restrictions on long term contract renewal are inconsistent with 

federal reclamation law and state law regarding contract renewal, have adverse financial 

consequences and provide no real environmental benefit. California water law and federal 

reclamation laws applicable everywhere else across the west provide a right of successive contract 

renewal Limiting renewal creates uncertainty for long-term financing and planning - with 

consequent financial costs to contractors (how many banks would write 30 year mortgages to 

people who by law will be unemployed in 25 years or less?) As a defined contract length is 

critical to securing economical long-term financing, the incentive to complete the required 

environmental review and enter into long-term contracts remains. 

As a result and despite what critics of attempt to refine the CVPIA contracting provisions 

may claim. there is no threat to meeting environmental obligations as a result of long-term 

contracts since the Project is operated to meet the environmental requirements of federal water 

quality, federal and state endangered species needs and CVPIA mandates before deliveries of 

water under contract are made. Further, the State Water Resources Control Board and state law 

requirement that water be put to reasonable beneficial use are the true and appropriate authorities 

for making decisions regar?D>g use of California's water resources. 

CVPW A Slalement Page S - 20 July 1995 
ISBN 0-16-047803-0 

90000