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 sur- 

 face water delivery systems. We have also clarified this in 42 in- 

 terim contracts we have recently signed with our contractors. 



Section 5 of the bill would clarify that compliance with the water 

 conservation guidelines £ind 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 po- 

 sition in a letter to our interim contractors. 



Section 7 of the bill stipulates that funds appropriated for acqui- 

 sition 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 re- 

 duction 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 pro- 

 visions 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 deliv- 

 ery of water to refuges. 



The Department opposes provisions in section 3 which would 

 eliminate all environmental restoration goals for striped bass, stur- 

 geon, 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 ex- 

 isting 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 ad- 

 ditional 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 rea- 

 son to reopen the Act. Simply put, we think H.R. 1906 is pre- 

 mature and unnecessary. The legislation threatens the historic con- 

 sensus that has brought together all the stakeholders in Califor- 



