211 



recovery and management of the fish and wildlife in their own communities. In other 

 words, the 1 984 Act finally acknowledged those who, as far as the Central Valley Project 

 was concerned, had become the forgotten Caiifornians. 



The severe drought in the late 1 980s and the operating criteria for the Trinity 

 Division that emphasized diversions of water to the CVP was devastating. Not only were 

 fish populations further weakened, low flows in the Trinity River prevented the 

 development of needed data for the long-term study. In 1991 Interior Secretary Manuel 

 Lujan, Jr., (a former Member of this Committee) directed the Bureau of Reclamation to 

 release annually a minimum of 340,000 acre feet of water from the Trinity Division for the 

 benefit of the fishery. That decision was crucial to the restoration of the Trinity River 

 fishery. 



Anticipating efforts to rescind that decision, we requested our Representative, 

 Congressman Frank Riggs, to reinforce it with an Act of Congress. He agreed and, after 

 a difficult legislative battle, achieved bipartisan support for enactment of section 

 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA which became known as the Riggs Amendment. The Riggs 

 Amendment both confirmed Secretary Lujan's decision and established a legislative 

 framework for reaching a final decision on water requirements for the Trinity River fishery 

 and developing operating criteria and procedures for the Trinity Division. 



The 1984 Restoration Act, Secretary Lujan's 1991 administrative decision, and the 

 1992 Riggs Amendment each required that decisions on Trinity River water supplies be 

 based on the best available scientific data. 



Having failed to prevent adoption of Secretary Lujan's administrative decision or 

 the enactment of the Riggs Amendment, the Central Valley Project attacked the Riggs 

 Amendment in court. That attack collapsed almost as soon as it began. A Federal district 

 court in the Central Valley ruled that the Riggs Amendment had a solid foundation in the 

 administrative record developed by Secretary Lujan, and that the Department of the 

 Interior could immediately begin implementation of the Riggs Amendment without prior 

 additional compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Westlands Water 

 District, et al. v. United States . CV-F-93-5327-OWW, (E.D. Calif., April 28, 1994) 

 (Memorandum Opinion and Order). The plaintiffs did not appeal. 



Thus, the Riggs Amendment has been through a rigorous review by all three 

 branches of government. In each case our opponents have done their best to defeat it, 

 and each time they have failed. They have had their three strikes and they ought to be 

 out. 



Section 6(b)(6) of H.R. 1906 is the latest assault on the Riggs Amendment. H.R. 

 1906 would force the return to the political arena in Congress of detailed scientific data 

 regarding fishery conservation and hydrology that the Department of the Interior has spent 

 years in developing at Congress' direction. It is a flagrant attack on Indian reserved fishing 



Testimony by Pliny Mc Covey, Sr., on HR 1906 

 July 20, 1995 

 Page 3 



