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 ef- 

 fort 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 availabil- 

 ity of the limited resources and the tremendous benefits of the cur- 

 rent 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 fish- 

 ery 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 re- 

 marks of Senator Feinstein and Interior Secretair Babbitt in re- 

 gard to the reestablishment of a salmon fishery below Friant Dam. 

 I have also included some articles relative to the renewal of con- 

 tracts. 



The CVPRA will reconfirm that it is in the national interests to 

 ensure that water will continue to flow to the Friant Division serv- 

 ice 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 nave 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 reestablish flows below 

 Friant Dam. 



Another CVPIA issue near and dear to my heart is contract re- 

 newal. One of the most potentially devastating provisions of the 

 CVPIA that would gamer 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 unreason- 

 able, 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 envi- 

 ronmental values. Greater certainty will allow these water users 



