375 



it, you know, if the flow regime of the Power Council is followed, 

 through drawdowns or in other ways of finding increased flows. So 

 what I would posit to you is perhaps we ought to link an irrigation 

 rate to some demonstrated best, efficient practices on the part of 

 irrigators as opposed to just providing it blanket to all irrigators. 

 You might respond to that. 



Mr. Clayhold. Well, I do not think the irrigator and irrigation 

 utilities are afraid of that concept. In fact, it has been in practice 

 for the last couple of years. It was a way we were able to preserve 

 the irrigation discount, as we understand it anjrway, through the 

 1993 rate case. Irrigators have a long history of conservation activi- 

 ties, mostly driven by their own costs. Certainly some of it came 

 about because of Bonneville payments. There are a number of con- 

 servation programs being operated among the irrigators right now, 

 and we can clearly show — and I just mentioned this briefly, but the 

 paper talks about it a little more — we can show that there has been 

 a decline in energy usage by the irrigators even though the irri- 

 gated agriculture has risen slightly, ever so slightly. Not much but 

 just a little bit, and this does demonstrate then a more efficient op- 

 eration on the part of the irrigators. 



We also suggest in our paper that not much attention has been 

 focused on the irrigation segment, most of it has been conservation 

 practices along the 1-5 corridor, and that is where the big stuff is 

 I suppose. But we are talking about tiny stuff" here, we are talking 

 about irrigation withdrawals of the whole region of around 6 per- 

 cent. 



Mr. DeFazio. But some of it is in key areas. We had extensive 

 discussion about this, particularly dealing with the Snake, yester- 

 day in Idaho. Some of it is in very key areas. 



Mr. Clayhold. Yes, and I understand that issue too, it is a very 

 sensitive issue. 



The other point about the value of seasonality and the value of 

 summer energy down in California, if we are about to get into that 

 and if that is the way Bonneville prices its power, we are going to 

 stand this region on its head. We are going to become the energy 

 farm for California while our industries float down the river or dry 

 up. I mean that is cockeyed. 



Mr. DeFazio. No, no, but the key is that we have winter peaking 

 needs, we have to shape the flows differently on the rivers. There 

 are ways to meet the needs, avoid environmental problems in Cali- 

 fornia; that is, firing up the thermals in areas which are restricted 

 under the Clean Air Act, so we are meeting their environmental 

 problems, they are meeting our environmentsd problems with flows. 

 These are very beneficial exchanges which would be much more 

 costly to obtain in other ways. If we had to get those increased 

 flows in other ways — if you had been in Idaho yesterday, it is pret- 

 ty controversial, the other ways we are looking at getting those 

 flows, as opposed to being able to shape them with these kinds of 

 exchanges. 



Mr. Clayhold. Obviously this is for a much longer discussion 

 than we can do here. I would simply point out that we still believe 

 that there are definite benefits to Bonneville on a cost-based ap- 

 proach for this unique summer load, that goes away in the winter. 

 And you cannot escape that, it does goes away in the winter. 



