181 



requiring the diversion and re-use of sucli water tor consumptive purposes "to the fullest extent possible," 

 (5) authorizing reductions of up to 200,000 AF whenever CVP agricultural deliveries are reduced for any 

 reason, (6) barring tlie use of such water to increase Delta outflows beyond those amounts required by 

 other existing laws, and (7) imposing the crediting provisions of the Bay/Delta Accord as a statutory 

 requirement of the CVPIA. 



Comments: Taken together, the above provisions eviscerate the CVPIA's 800,000 acre feet of "dedicated 

 yield" as a meaningful tool for pro-active fishery restoration. (Data provided by the CVP Authority 

 indicate that contractor deliveries of CVP water are projected to increase by more than 1,459,400 AF 

 aimually between 1995 and 2030. Could this be why it is so important to "recapture" the environment's 

 dedicated but minority share of CVP supplies?) Selective application of the "crediting" provisions of the 

 Bay/Delta Accord also ignores the many other elements of that comprehensive Agreement that made such 

 crediting appropriate for its three-year life. Also, if the CVP can be operated so that water can be "re- 

 used" after conu^ibuting to fishery needs, why wouldn't it be operated that way in any case? 



TRINITY RIVER Imposes new rulemaking requirements which must be satisfied prior to the 

 implementation of any improved instream releases to the Trinity River. Requires that any such 

 improvements must include unspecified variances "to take into account differing hydrologic and reservoir 

 storage conditions." 



Comments: These amendments would establish a new set of hurdles to realization of tlie fishery restoration 

 objectives for the Trinity River, as well as fulfillment of the Secretary's Indian Trust obligations, as 

 required by P.L. 98-541 more than 10 years ago. 



SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Eliminates a program to investigate whether "reasonable, prudent, and feasible" 

 options may exist for the restoration of fisheries in the San Joaquin River and throughout the San Joaquin 

 River basin. Provides for federal preemption of any associated instream releases below Friant Dam, and 

 imposes a revisionist history on the efforts and intentions of prior Congresses. Adds a long list of newly 

 authorized projects of uncertain source or benefit. 



Comments: These amendments override a carefully-crafted compromise involving virtually all parties of 

 interest. They would also create a new priority for the use of Restoration Funds for projects of 

 questionable merit or benefit, and would eliminate as a matter of federal law important flexibility under 

 existing state law or as part of current efforts to achieve a long-term resolution of Bay/Delta problems. 



FRIANT CONTRIBUTIONS Caps Friant Division surcharges provided in lieu of releases below Friant 

 Dam at $6 million per year, or at $4.00/ Al^ for Class 1 water and up to 50% of Class 2 water. 



Comments: These amendments would further reduce the Bay/Delta contributions of Friant Division 

 contractors (who export as much as 2,300,000 AF annually from the Bay/Delta system). In wet years, unit 

 charges would drop to as little as $2.60/ AF ($6m/2.3MAF). In dry years, total collections would drop to 

 as little as $2.2 million (540kaP$4/AF) in direct violation of the amendment itself. Further, by imposing 

 such caps, these amendments eliminate any pretense that Friant in-lieu conU'ibutions will keep pace with 

 inflation (unlike every other CVPIA-autliorized surcharge). Depending on water year type and the year 

 in question, these provisions will result in a loss of Restoration Fund income of $2-14 million/year. 



REFUGE WATER Requires a re-investigation of water supply needs for state and federal refuges. 

 Mandates within one year construction or acquisition of new conveyance and pumping capacity (including 



A-4 



