89 



was claimed once, or whether it is logging practices, as has been 

 claimed, or whether it is the CVP. 



We heard some very compelling testimony here last month by a 

 professor of biology — I think he was from the University of Wash- 

 ington — indicating that it has to do with the temperature of the 

 water. And there is an inverse relationship between the situation 

 off the coast of Alaska and off our north coast. And when one is 

 good, the other is bad. 



So, I don't know. But I do understand you have your point of 

 view, to which you are certainly entitled. Nevertheless, we will look 

 forward to trying to identify a common ground wherever possible. 



And to Mr. Riggs whose input in all of this I appreciate and who 

 has had a significant impact on the way the provision of the Trinity 

 River is worded, I would just say to you that what we are trying 

 to accomplish is to address the chronic water shortage south of the 

 delta. 



They are concerned about the present provision in the law where 

 the Secretary can arbitrarily — ^well, hopefully it is not arbitrarily, 

 but it would be possible for it to be arbitrary — can determine some 

 increased level of flow above the 340,000 acre feet, and that will 

 dramatically impact what happens south of the delta. 



We at least would like to know the scientific conclusions, the 

 data on which that decision is going to be based and have the op- 

 portunity to challenge that in Court should we feel that the rights 

 are being violated there. That is the purpose of it. Having rep- 

 resented Trinity County once in our State Senate, I am well aware 

 of the conditions they face there, and then they have good reason 

 to complain over the years past what has happened to their fish- 

 eries and their river and so forth. I am sjnnpathetic to that. 



But we are trying to provide some sort of a balance in this bill 

 to address the competing equities. I really don't think we have 

 done violence to the Trinity River in the bill. We are just asking 

 for the data to be submitted, public hearing comment and notice, 

 and the opportunity to go to Court if we feel it is improperly de- 

 cided. As you know, it was written differently, and your interven- 

 tion changed that. We will continue to work together as we move 

 ahead. 



Mr. Somach, we have heard some people comment that we just 

 ought to do this administratively, and, you know, to have a bill 

 right now is a fly in the ointment. Do you believe that your con- 

 cerns relative to the water rights of your clients will or likely will 

 be protected administratively? 



Mr. Somach. I have absolutely no confidence that if we leave this 

 to administrative fiat that the issues I have raised will be ad- 

 dressed satisfactorily. And, in fact, we have had extensive con- 

 versations with the Bureau of Reclamation and others at the De- 

 partment of Interior, and we know at least at this point that they 

 are going to be dealt with exactly opposite to the way that we be- 

 lieve they should be. 



And we have been arguing this point with them since the day 

 after the enactment of this bill and have yet to get any kind of re- 

 lief or any kind of satisfaction on what we thought was very clear 

 when the Act was enacted. So we see no other way to proceed with 

 respect to clarification than through legislation. 



