82 



STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK RIGGS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

 FROM CALIFORNIA 



Mr. RiGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here 

 in this vast and intimidating hearing room. Mr. Chairman and 

 members of the subcommittee, I am testifjdng before you today be- 

 cause of the extreme importance of this legislation to my 1st Con- 

 gressional District in northwest California. I want to thank you for 

 the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 1906, the proposed 

 Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995. 



I, perhaps better than most Members of Congress — ^given the fact 

 that I represent a district that sprawls over 400 miles from the 

 Sasoon Bay to the Oregon border — appreciate and understand the 

 importance of water issues in the western United States and the 

 strong emotions that water allocation issues evoke. I understand 

 there were some strong emotions evoked here earlier today. That 

 is probably a testament to just how controversial these issues are, 

 certainly for Califomians. 



As the California congressional delegation's majority member on 

 the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Develop- 

 ment, I recently played a significant role in the fiscal year 1996 

 budget deliberaticns. While our overall bill was $2 billion less than 

 the Administration had requested, I am pleased to report to you 

 today that we were able to provide significant support for oper- 

 ations of the Central Valley Project, as well as for a number of re- 

 lated programs that will benefit Central Valley water users. 



Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other sponsors of 

 this legislation for continuing the spirit of cooperation that existed 

 during the budget process. I particularly appreciate your sensitivity 

 to the interests of my congressional district and your efforts to ad- 

 dress our concerns. While we obviously are not in the Central Val- 

 ley, we are certainly affected by the Central Valley Project. 



I had, at the outset of the deliberations on this bill, a particular 

 objection to a provision in an earlier draft that would have effec- 

 tively vitiated an amendment I authored to the Central Valley 

 Project Improvement Act of 1992. That was approved in the 102nd 

 Congress with strong bipartisan support. I might add that was dur- 

 ing my previous service in the Congress, before my sabbatical. I did 

 support that legislation and, in particular, the provision of the 

 CVPIA that is critically important to my district. 



That provision calls for preparation of an environmental impact 

 study to determine the effect of the Trinity diversion on native fish- 

 eries. This provision effectively codified a decision by former Inte- 

 rior Secretary Lujan, based on preliminary results of a long-term 

 study of anadromous fishery restoration, to raise the minimum 

 instream flow releases into the Trinity-Klamath River System from 

 the CVP's Trinity River Division. 



It was my intention to take future decisions regarding flow regi- 

 mens in that river system out of the political arena by providing 

 that when the long-term study is completed, which is expected to 

 be 1996, flows could be adjusted by the Secretary of the Interior, 



The earlier version of this legislation might have eliminated the 

 Secretar^s authority to implement a future flow regimen based on 

 the long-term study. Furthermore, the bill could have led to a Fifth 

 Amendment claim for damages to Indian reserved fishing rights. 



