180 



contractois' CVP supply. Removes an important voluntary water conservation incentive. Eliminates a 

 significant long-term source of Restoration Fund income and/or supplemental water-up to $16 million 

 annually, and/or up to 385,000 AF of conserved CVP water-depending on the pace of contract renewals 

 as well as actual yearly demands for CVP water. 



WATER CONSERVATION Imposes vague but potentially significant hurdles in the development of 

 meaningful conservation criteria and guidelines for CVP water. Removes any remaining link between 

 water conservation plans and the findings and recommendations of the final report of the Kesterson- 

 inspired federal-state San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. Affirms that contractors alone shall benefit 

 "in a maimer consistent with Slate law" from CVP water conserved pursuant to an approved conservation 

 plan (including de-facto approvals after a 90-day period). 



Comments: Entirely missing from these provisions is any recognition of the fact that the taxpaying public 

 has an ongoing, substantive interest in the disposition and use of CVP water (including conserved water). 

 Thus, if other aspects of the CVPIA are modified as proposed herein, more (as opposed to less) public 

 scrutiny of and benefit from contractor-based water conservation programs would be warranted. The 

 proposed deletion of all references to the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program makes a mockery of the 

 $80-plus million expended by taxpayers to address the problems at Kesterson Reservoir and to assess and 

 document the benefits of water conservation and source reduction as priority and cost-effective strategies 

 for solving agricultural drainage problems throughout the San Joaquin Valley. 



FULFILLMENT OF PURPOSES Provides that the mere pursuit of CVPIA authorized programs and 

 activities shall be deemed to fulfill tlie mitigation, protection, restoration, and enhancement provisions and 

 purposes of the CVPIA. 



Comments: This would remove any requirement for meaningful or substantive accomplishment as a 

 measure of fulfilling the CVP's fish and wildlife purposes. (Does the Secretary's "pursuit" of these 

 programs since October 1992 mean that, if H.R. 1906 is enacted, the job is already done?) It would also 

 undermine the State's recently-adopted Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which requires, among 

 other provisions, "prompt and efficient actions ... to implement " the CVPIA's fishery restoration objectives 

 (emphasis added). 



FISHERY RESTORATION Eliminates the Act's fishery restoration goals and program in favor of the 

 State of California's goal of doubling salmon and sleelhead production only. Gives statutory priority to 

 CVPIA-authorized structural fixes. Eliminates a program under which the Secretary would assist the state 

 in restoring the Bay/Delta striped bass fishery. 



Comments: While the CVPIA's fishery restoration objectives are a clear embrace of existing State policy, 

 the Act made those goals attainable (in the face of previous State inaction) as well as ecologically sound 

 by providing the funding and the authority needed to achieve a sustainable doubling in the natural 

 production of anadromous fish. As proposed herein, priority would be given to CVPIA-authorized 

 structural fixes, irrespective of their scientific or biological merit In addition, such a "narrowing" of 

 purposes and objectives moves away from the goals of broad-based ecosystem restoration as is finally 

 being pursued in earnest in the Bay/Delta Accord implementation process. 



DEDICATED YIELD Re-defines the 800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield dedicated to fishery restoration 

 purposes by (1) eliminating its primary purpose (i.e., the above doubling goal), (2) substituting "reserved 

 water" for "dedicated yield," (3) removing all references to impacts on CVP delivery capability, (4) 



A-3 



