145 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



P.O. Drawer 1268 (916) 623-1217 



WEAVERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96093 



Dero B. Fortlund, Clerk 

 Jcannie NixTemph, Administratiue Officer 



TESTIMONY OF TRINITY COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. IN OPPO.STTION TO THE TRINITY 

 RIVF.R PROVISIONS OF HR. 1906 



The Trinity County Board of Supervisors opposes the deleterious alteration of the Riggs 

 Amendment to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act which is proposed by H.R. 1906. 

 The alteration does nothing to improve the Trinity River Flow Decision addressed by the Riggs 

 Amendment (Section 3406<b)(23)), and is a thinly veiled attempt to delay implementation of that 

 vitally important decision. The alteration would add needless bureaucratic procedure, 

 paperwork, and costs onto an already open, public process that has taken nearly 15 years and 

 millions of dollars to complete. Continued delay of the Interior Secretary's 1996 Trinity River 

 Flow Decision is, in essence, continuance of a "taking" against the people and economies of 

 Trinity County, the Klamath-Trinity basin, and the Northern California- Southern Oregon coastal 

 region. 



When the Trinity Division was proposed in the 1950s, the people of Trinity County were 

 promised that "not one bucketful" of Trinity River water necessary in the basin would be 

 exported for CVT use. We were promised our economy would be improved. Instead, since 

 completion of the Trinity Division in 1963, we have seen 90% of the Trinity River flow at 

 Lewiston exported out of the basin, with devastating impacts to the local and regional economy 

 from d^ressed fish populations and an altered ecosystem. For the past five years, the Trinity 

 River fall king salmon run has not met minimum escapement levels for returning adult 

 spawners. Fishing regulations have tightened to the point that catch and release is, at times, our 

 only fishing opport-jnity. The results are measurable in business closures, high unemployment, 

 and pervasive federally-caused economic anemia. 



In recent years our local economy has also been devastated by the severe decline in the timber 

 industry as a result of the listir- tjf the spotted owl and other environmental restrictions. 

 Altering the Riggs Amendment and thereby postporiing a theiBpeutic flow decision will depress 

 our timber industry even further, by shifting the emphasis of fishery restoration efforts towards 

 even more otherAise unnecessary restrictions on watershed land use, and undermining 

 significant collaborative efforts by timber and other interests to restore fish populations without 

 additional regulation. The 1996 Trinity River Flow Decision is one of the bright spots in our 

 precarious economic picture, providing some hope of better times to come in the two industries 

 which sustain us. 



Under the CVPIA, the Interior Secretary will make his decision on permanent Trinity River 

 instream flows and Trinity Division operating criteria by December 31 , 1996. The flow 

 decision is being comprehensively evaluated in an environmental review process pursuant to the 

 National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Trinity 

 County, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service are the lead agencies for the "Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration 

 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report" - (Trinity EIS/EIR). There are 

 several state, federal and tribal agencies cooperating with the lead agencies to develop a 

 meaningful analysis of the flow decision. As required by NEPA and CEQA, the flow decision 



