36 



Iv, 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 im- 

 proving the implementation of CVPIA, and they began to show en- 

 thusiasm 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 ef- 

 fectively. 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 re- 

 serves 800,000 acre feet of CVP water for systemwide fisheries pro- 

 tection, 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 environ- 

 mental 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 De- 

 partment to work jointly with the state in pursuit of California's 

 fish doubling goal. 



H.R. 1906 "^0 maintains Trinity River fish flows of at least 

 340,000 acreCSett annually while the need for additional flows is 

 steady. H.R. 1906 maintains existing guarantees of firm water sup- 

 plies tbr wetland habitat, and the bill continues to give wildlife ref- 

 uges priority over agricultural users during shortages. H.R. 1906 

 continues to authorize water trsinsfers 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 re- 

 gions 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 agree- 

 ment, et cetera. And we anticipate that if H.R. 1906 was imple- 

 mented tomorrow, the average water supplies for most of our mem- 

 bers would be in the 65 to 75 percent range. 



H.R. 1906 is not a threat to the Bay-Delta agreement. As a par- 

 ticipant in and signatory to the Bay-Delta process and accord, I 

 want to reaffirm our commitment to the accord and its full imple- 

 mentation. 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 agri- 

 cultural 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- 



