74 



Mr. Kerry. Yes. When you have a drought year, what happens 

 is that the usual places where water is is not available in the Pa- 

 cific Flyway. You have these birds that are going to come from the 

 north no matter if there is a drought or if there is a lot of water. 

 So at that time, it is very, very critical to get as much water out 

 as possible. What I am saying is that that reduction sometimes 

 isn't acceptable, but we would consider allowing the Secretary to go 

 ahead and make that decision, but we don't want it mandatory. 



Mr, Miller. Well, you are saying a reduction on refuges ought 

 to be determined by the condition and the needs of the refuge, and 

 that shouldn't be linked to whether or not you have three cuttings 

 of alfalfa or two cuttings of alfalfa allowed or you allow com or you 

 allow melons, that you have got to look at the refuge and the needs 

 of the refuge and linking the two, you know, maybe puts some po- 

 litical resistance in reductions. But the fact of the matter is they 

 are not for the same purpose? 



Mr. Kerry. That is right. Just say, for instance, the Secretary 

 says, "OK, There is going to be a reduction of 15 percent," but 

 there shouldn't be an automatic reduction of 25 percent. What we 

 are saying is that if you have a lot of birds coming down the 

 flyway, it is most important to get as much water out as you pos- 

 sibly can, 



Mr. Miller, Secondly, on page eight, you talk about and I was 

 wondering if you would just elaborate on — ^you say the bill elimi- 

 nates a requirement of funding necessary to deliver these wetland 

 water supplies be reimbursable and earmarking 67 percent of the 

 fund for habitat restoration improvement and acquisition, 



Mr, Kerry, I am going to allow Bill Gaines, our Director of Gov- 

 ernmental Affairs, to answer that. He is with the California Water- 

 fowl Association, 



Mr, Gaines, Yes, I am Bill Gaines, the Director of Grovemment 

 Affairs for the California Waterfowl Association, Would you repeat 

 the question please? 



Mr, Miller, Yes, In your testimony on page eight in the second 

 to last paragraph, you state that H,R, 1906 makes funding of the 

 restoration fund more tenuous in two ways. The bill eliminates the 

 requirement for funding necessary to deliver these wetland water 

 supplies be reimbursable and the earmarking of 67 percent of the 

 fund for habitat restoration improvement and acquisition. You see 

 that as what? You raise that as a concern. I want to know why that 

 is a concern. 



Mr. Gaines. Our main concern with the changing of the funding 

 for the level two water supplies from reimbursable to 

 nonreimbursable is that by taking those out of the Restoration 

 Fund and putting them to where they have to be paid out of tax- 

 payer dollars, our belief is that that is going to raise the risk asso- 

 ciated with whether or not that money will be available in any 

 given fiscal year. 



Even if the water may be available, the money may not be avail- 

 able for one reason or another, whether it be budget cuts or so 

 forth. And we don't think that that is something that we want to 

 face. We have got the risk of having a wet year versus a dry year 

 year in and year out. We don't want to face the risk associated with 



