87 



[Statement of Mr. McCovey may be found at end of hearing.] 

 Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Stuart Somach is recognized. 



STATEMENT OF STUART L. SOMACH, ESQUIRE, DE CUIR & 



SOMACH 



Mr. SoMACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the sub- 

 committee. I am here representing various northern California 

 water interests including the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, for 

 which I am general counsel, water contractors on the Tehama- 

 Colusa Canal, and through the Northern California Water Associa- 

 tion, numerous Sacramento River Water Rights Settlement Con- 

 tractors. 



The entities that I have listed have had direct exposure to and 

 have been directly affected by the Central Valley Project Improve- 

 ment Act. They have, as a consequence, been greatly interested in 

 proposals that would clarify the CVPIA and better ensure its rea- 

 sonable and successful implementation. We believe that H.R. 1906 

 constitutes one approach for dealing with problems associated with 

 the CVPIA. 



I want to turn my attention for the purposes of this verbal testi- 

 mony to provisions of H.R. 1906 which most affect interests in the 

 Sacramento Valley. H.R. 1906 would modify three definitions in the 

 CVPIA. Two of these modifications focus on what water is subject 

 to the provisions of the CVPIA and Bureau of Reclamation control. 



When the CVPIA was drafted and debated, we were assured that 

 only CVP water would be implicated. In particular, we were con- 

 cerned that the rights of those with state-created water rights, 

 which predate the water rights acquired by the CVP, would not be 

 affected by the legislation. 



In its implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement 

 Act, the Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that it will treat set- 

 tlement contracts on the Sacramento River the same as CVP water 

 service and repa3rment contracts. Sacramento River settlement con- 

 tracts, however, are not water service or repajrment contracts. 



These settlement contracts were entered into with the United 

 States as a means to address and resolve the protests of those with 

 water rights on the Sacramento River to the granting of water 

 rights to the Bureau of Reclamation for the CVP. These contracts 

 were in every sense of the word a settlement of protests made by 

 those with prior water rights on the Sacramento River. 



At no time was there any intent, nor can the contracts them- 

 selves be construed as simply converting those prior water rights 

 to reclamation contract rights. The base rights to water were never 

 compromised as part of the settlement. 



Sections 3(b) and (c) of H.R. 1906 address this issue by providing 

 appropriate clarifications that the terms "Central Valley Project 

 water," "repayment contract," and "water service contract" do not 

 include water right settlement contracts such as those on the Sac- 

 ramento River, and that the only water that reclamation can exer- 

 cise control over is water that it has acquired. 



Water rights acquired by others including Sacramento River set- 

 tlement contractors are not for the United States to control. These 

 provisions should not be viewed with concern by anybody. They 

 merely confirm what was the intent, if not the letter, of the CVPIA. 



