146 



will be analyzed along with other possible alternatives to meet the fishery restoration goals of 

 P.L. 98-541 and to meet the Federal trust obligation to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok tribes. 

 This is an established, science-driven process into whic^: millions of dollars have already been 

 invested; the public is fully engaged, and there will be numerous opportunities for public review 

 and input. We expect the Trinity EIS/EIR to be a model of federal, tribal and local cooperation 

 on an issue of local, regional and national significance. 



Application of an Administrative Procedures Act review to the Trinity River Row Decision is 

 politics at its worst and contrary to the promise of the Contract With America to reduce red tape 

 and the cost of government. It is obvious from earlier drafts of this bill circulated by the 

 Central Valley Project Water Association that the real intent is to cap Trinity River flows at the 

 current minimum of 340,000 acre feet per year and indefinitely delay the Trinity River Flow 

 Decision. A rulemaking hurdle, especially with a mandated minimum comment period, would 

 confer an open-ended opportunity to delay and perhaps derail the permanent flow decision, and 

 it would require more federal money to engage. It would not confer opportunities for the 

 public, including the CVP contractors, to comment and shape the decision beyond those 

 otherwise afforded by the environmental review process which is already underway. Indeed, 

 the EIS/EIR review will examine a broader range of alternatives, economic factors and analyses 

 than would a rulemaking proceeding. We know this to be true because Trinity County, as a lead 

 agency in the environmental review, is actively shaping the scope and content of that review. 



What sense does it make to go through a public review and comment process under MEPA for 

 two years and then require the Secretary to go through another public review and comment 

 process under the APA on a narrower range of die same issues? This is, at best, needless 

 bureaucratic inefficiency. 



Another alteration of the Riggs Amendment which we strenuously object to is the proposed 

 deletion of the word "and" at the end ofthe first sub-paragrs^h of Section 3406(b)(23). That 

 deletion disassociates the 1996 flow decision from the requirement to meet P.L. 98-541 fishery 

 restoration goals and the Federal trust responsibilities to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. 



The question of whether the permanent flows should vary according to hydrologic and reservoir 

 storage conditions should be decided on the basis of the scientific studies which are neaiing 

 completion, not by political fiat. However, we understand that the proposed flow decision and 

 Trinity Division operating criteria will vary according to 5 different water year types and 

 reservoir carryover storage conditions. 



In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to delete any references to the Trinity River from 

 H.R. 1906. The existing process is working well and we do not see anything positive in the 

 proposed CVPIA amendmerit relative to the Trinity River. The 1996 Trinity River Flow 

 Decision should not be subverted- it is an established process which is intended to make right 

 the wrongs of the past. Let's continue to work on solutions to these complex problems by using 

 science and the existing regulatory framework, not political chicanery and deceptive regulatory 

 roadblocks to progress. Please don't compound the problems of the Trinity River fishery with 

 this proposed legislation. Thank you. 



Approved July 18, 1995 ^^ 



"^oss B'urgesSi^airman 



Trinity Counfy^Board of Supervisors 



