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 Sac- 

 ramento 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 Califor- 

 nia. 



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 sug- 

 gest 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 Congres- 

 sional District, we trickle a little bit into the system since you do 

 pull 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 



