190 



you to put mechanisms in place to encourage implementation of the report's 

 recommendations whether those recommendations encourage more or less water for 

 refuges. 



An additional area of concern relates to the need for all CVP water contractors to 

 implement water conservation standards. As this section reads, this requirement would 

 also impose these standards on private wetland landowners and refuges in the Central 

 Valley. Although all water users should be using water wisely, there is no recognition 

 within this section that the management of wetland habitat is very different from the 

 management of agricultural crops. We believe the criteria for water conservation on 

 wetlands and refuges must be dealt with separately, or confusion will likely result in 

 implementation of H.R. 1906 that would impair important optimum management of 

 Central Valley wetlands. 



The bill also directs the Secretary of Interior to construct or acquire water 

 conveyance facilities and capacity from non-Federal sources. The waterfowl community 

 supports this provision, but we believe that refuge and wildlife restoration should be 

 given a priority with respect to any additional water that can be delivered as a result of 

 additional capacity. The lack of clean and, direct authority to utilize fully non-Federal 

 sources deprives the Secretary and, more importantly, the waterfowl habitat and refuges 

 of much needed flexibility in meeting statutory and conservation objectives. 



The next area of H.R. 1906 which is of significant concern to us is the funding of 

 the restoration fund. Secure funding for the delivery of this wetland water is absolutely 

 essential to protecting refuges and wildlife. H.R. 1906 makes the funding of the 

 restoration fund more tenuous in two ways. The bill eliminates the requirement that the 

 funding necessary to deliver these wetland water supplies be reimbursable and the 

 earmarking of sixty-seven percent of the fund for habitat restoration, improvement and 

 acquisition. Our commitment is to secure funding, not to the principle of making f\ind 

 payments reimbursable. Unfortunately, we are not aware of a satisfactory alternative. 

 H.R. 1906 would make replenishment of the fund subject to the appropriations process. 

 In an era of ever tightening Federal budgets, this approach does not provide a secure 

 ftmding alternative opening the possibility of a lack of wetland water even in a year when 

 adequate water is available. And, the source of funds for restoration and protection is 

 further attenuated by the elimination of the earmarking requirement. This would open the 

 fiind up for purposes other than restoration and acquisition. The combination of these two 

 changes is, in our judgment, very dangerous to wetland, waterfowl and sporting interests. 



Mr. Chairman, earlier in my statement, 1 said that 1 did not know whether you or 

 your colleagues were duck hunters. 1 must confess that 1 hope each of you is one. Out in 

 California, we are pretty far away from Washington and most of the time we like it that 

 way. But events take place here that have a very significant impact on our land and the 

 wetlands and waterfowl we love. In thinking about this testimony and talking to friends, 



