189 



of a larger, historic wetland base. To an extent, agriculture can plan around a water 

 reduction. We cannot. In drought years, when this temporary reduction comes into play 

 the maintenance of these refuge acres is of utmost importance. The ducks will come from 

 the northern breeding areas whether we have adequate water or not. If we do not have 

 water than the ducks will either die or return to their nesting areas in poor shape, causing 

 a decline in nesting success and leading to a decline in the migratory bird population. 

 There are no planning alternatives. 



Having said that, Mr. Chairman, we want to emphasize that we do not take the 

 position that refuge water can never be reduced by twenty- five percent regardless of the 

 circumstances. We are not insisting upon a guarantee; rather, we are saying that the 

 Secretary should have the discretion to provide wetland water above the seventy-five 

 percent threshold if biologically justified. If a situation arises in which the risks to 

 society are so great that the Secretary determines that refuge water delivery must be 

 reduced temporarily, we believe this action may be justified. We cannot accept, however, 

 a mechanical mandate that deprives the Secretary of making a sound scientific judgment 

 about Central Valley wetlands and refuges. 



We also would propose another change to existing law and to H.R. 1906 which 

 we think will improve water management in the Central Valley. Under H.R. 1906, water 

 deliveries may be curtailed for any reason. Under current law, water deliveries may be 

 curtailed for hydrological circumstances. However, current law does not define 

 hydrological circumstances. We agree with the proponents of the legislation that the lack 

 of a definition leaves too much discretion with the Secretary. Therefore, we believe that 

 H.R. 1906 should be amended to include a definition of the hydrological circumstance for 

 which water deliveries may be temporarily reduced. Such a definition should eliminate 

 the possibility of a "regulatory drought" by tying water reduction for fish and wildlife to 

 precipitation and runoff levels and, in the case of consecutive dry years, perhaps to 

 carryover storage, as well. 



The third area of deep concern to us involves the future administration of the 

 Central Valley refuge program. H.R. 1906 provides that the Secretary will be "deemed" 

 to have met his or her legal obligations under the Central Valley Project Improvement 

 Act and the Central Valley Project Reform Act by "pursuing the programs and activities" 

 of each Act. Mr. Chairman, we think this provision will do more to improve the habitat 

 for Washington lawyers than for California ducks. We are not sure what pursuing a 

 program means. And, we believe that "deeming" compliance substitutes intentions for 

 actions, and efforts for results. We believe, as I know you do, in holding government 

 employees accountable for their actions. In a similar vein, we would like to address the 

 requirement of a new report on the accuracy of the "Dependable Water Supply." In 

 particular, we believe that, should this report be revisited, it must be done in a maimer 

 which assures the credibility of the new report, and the scope of the report should be 

 expanded somewhat to assure its.comprehensiveness. Perhaps most important, we urge 



