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 adminis- 

 trative 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 dur- 

 ing 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 con- 

 cluded that that study would continue again until 1996. And it left 

 the whole thing in jeopardy and an enormous amount of uncer- 

 tainty. And it speaks to the requested cap on Trinity River 

 instream flows simply because it leaves too much to the Adminis- 

 tration. That could go from 340,000 acre feet to 2 milUon 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 antici- 

 pate that administrative fixes would give any security to the water 

 supply in the area. 



I want to ask a question of Mr. Quinn, Mr. Smith and Mr. Nel- 

 son^'ust a brief yes or no, and that was with this proposed 

 change, CVPRA as it is being called, do you believe that it main- 

 tains 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 form — 

 what 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 state- 

 ment — ^was that regarding in-district transfers or was that out-of- 



