199 



doubling, of the CVPIA. However, the bill's authors, as a 

 concession to Central Valley Congressional members, agreed instead 

 on a study to determine what measures might be feasible for 

 restoring all or part of the San Joaquin fish and wildlife. In 

 what PCFPA views now as nothing more than treachery, those same 

 members who asked for the study are now trying to defund it, to 

 kill it. If these members do not want a study, then let*s simply 

 get on with restoring the San Joaquin. Our first recommendation, 

 since there is no study, is that flows adequate to support fish 

 life be made available for release from Friant Dam. There is, 

 after all, no study to say this is not reasonable or prudent. 

 Remember, fishermen will never forget the San Joaquin. 



Protection of the Trinity. The protection of Trinity flows, 

 requested by Mr. Riggs in 1992, was also an important element of 

 the CVPIA. Certainly the return of fishing jobs to the north coast 

 depends on the restoration of Klamath and Trinity stocks, as well 

 as a change in the method or place of allocating those stocks (not 

 necessarily in the allocation percentages) . PCFFA supported the 

 Riggs' provisions of 1992, as it will be supporting this year a 

 reauthorization of a reformed Trinity River Basin Fish & Wildlife 

 Restoration Act. 



H.R. 1906 



Make no mistake, the real reform of the Central Valley Project 

 occtirred in 1992 when President Bush signed the CVPIA. PCFFA' s 

 review of H.R. 1906, as currently drafted, is that it is 49 pages 

 of text repealing the CVPIA. Euphemistically called reform, the 

 bill is nothing more than a return to the old business-as-usual 

 days of CVP pork barrel operations. PCFFA does not dispute the 

 fact that most pieces of major legislation are followed by 

 subsequent "clean-up" measures to clarify meanings or address 

 glitches, indeed, PCFFA is currently working a crab limited entry 

 clean-up bill through the California Legislature presently to 

 address needed changes to its legislation of last year. And, given 

 the fact that many of the CVP contractors choose to fight the 

 passage of the CVPIA, rather than contribute to its drafting, it 

 is not surprising they may now have some problems. 



The (juestion is, is legislation needed now? First, what are 

 the real problems CVP contractors are having with the CVPIA? Keep 

 in mind, the 800,000 acre-feet has yet to be used and the 

 reductions in deliveries have had nothing to do with the CVPIA. 

 Nor have all the planned uses for the restoration fund been 

 finalized. Where's the beef? 



Second, to the extent legitimate problems may exist, are they 

 amenable to administrative remedies? Do we really need new 

 statutory language to address problems, many minor in nature, that 

 can be handled administratively? 



