178 



Environmental Defense Fund July 18, 1995 



An Initial Snmmary and Critique of Proposed Amendments to Title 34 of P.L. 102-575, 

 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 



The following comments, provided roughly in bill order, are based upon EDF's initial review of H.R. 

 1906, the Central Valley Project Reform Act of 1995, as introduced on June 21, 1995. In sum, these 

 amendments would: 



• promote significant increases in the CVP's consumptive water use commitments 

 at the direct expense of the fish and wildlife resources adversely impacted by CVP 

 operations and development 



• frustrate and impede the use of voluntary water transfers as a crucial water 

 management tool for California's future 



• perpetuate long-standing water use subsidies for CVP irrigation contractors and 

 impose significant new costs on federal taxpayers 



• eviscerate restoration goals for salmon, steelhead trout, and other anadromous 

 fish, severely frustrate their attainment for state and federal refuges and wildlife habitat 

 areas, and provide for federal pre-emption of state instream flow protection laws 



• reduce, significantly and permanently, CVP Restoration Fund revenues, distort 

 Restoration Fund expendiiure priorities in favor of "brick and mortar" style fixes, and shift 

 an ever-greater share of restoration costs to CVP power customers 



• destroy the "reasonable balance" finally provided by the CVPIA among the 

 Project's longstanding irrigation clients and other California interests, including power 

 customers, urban water users, and long-neglected fish and wildlife resources 



In addition, H.R. 1906 would undermine, directly and indirectly, the foundation upon which the December 

 15, 1994 Principles for Agreement on Bay-Delta Standards are based. For these reasons, and for the many 

 additional reasons set forth below, EDF~as a signatory to the Bay/Delta Accord, and on behalf of its 

 250,000 members nationwide -opposes H.R. 1906. 



A-1 



