216 



been made toward developing environmental partnerships with varioiis parties, 

 including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation and 

 environmental groups. These partnerships have allowed us to create extensive 

 wildlife and waterfowl habitat within and adjacent to cultivated fields. As part of 

 this process we have reduced the burning of rice straw which has minimized air 

 quality conflicts. We have also reduced pesticide loading by over 95%, thereby 

 improving the general quality of the rivers and streams in the Sacramento 

 Valley. Additionally, in cooperation with various state and federal agencies, we 

 are in the process of addressing probl^ns associated with fish screens, and have 

 contributed funds and expertise beyond that required by the CVPIA to study and 

 improve fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, in order to reduce or 

 eliminate any adverse impact of our operations on fish populations. The net 

 result of our efforts and successes, in this regard, is an attitude that does not 

 oppose reasonable envirorunental protections but welcomes them. 



With the foregoing in mind, I would like to turn my attention to the 

 provisions of H.R. 1906 which most affect interests in the Sacramento Valley. 



Initially, it was our understanding that the CVPIA was not intended to be 

 pumitive to existing CVP contractors. TT\e CVPIA itself provides that among its 

 purposes is the achievement of a reasonable balance among competing demands 

 for use of CVP water including requirements of agricultural, municipal and 

 industrial, power contractors and tiie requirements of fish and wildlife. Since 

 enactment, this core pxirpose has been more or less ignored, with CVP 

 contractors' needs being subordinated to fish and wildlife-driven operations. As 

 we read H.R. 1906, it appears that one of its fundamental purposes is to clarify 

 this point, both throu^ a revised statement of purposes, and also through 

 modifications in certain substantive provisions of the CVPIA. These 

 modifications seek to address imreasonable imbalance in the CVPIA and its 

 implementation. 



H.R. 1906 would modify three definitions in the CVPIA. The first 

 modification seeks to clarify the definition of "anadromous fish" so that the term 

 is limited to stocks of Scdmon. This clarification, in our view, is helpful. 

 Focusing on habitat and flow-related demands of this spedes will have the 

 benefit of improving the enviroiunent for other fish species without 

 tmreasonably encumbering the process through a requirement that all 

 anadromous fish spedes need to be doubled. The current CVPIA approach 

 creates the anomalous situation in which one must attempt to double both 

 predator spedes such as Striped Bass and prey such as Salmon at the same time. 

 This approach never niade much common sense and correction of this problem 

 should allow for greater success in reaching the real goals of the CVPIA in a 

 reasonable fashion. 



The other modifications to definitions focus on what water is subject to 

 the provisions of the CVPIA and Bureau of Redamation control. When the 



