98 



Right now one of the key objectives, for example, is to minimize 

 the cost of power generation and to make power generation more 

 efficient. I would like to, for example, see a parallel goal to that re- 

 lated to fisheries. 



Under the coordination agreement, different kinds of shifting op- 

 erations occur to the benefit of the customers. I would like to see 

 fishery considerations incorporated into whether to do those shifts. 



So there are changes within the structure of the agreement that 

 I think need to be looked at as well as the idea of who participates, 

 so that we actually use the coordination to get agreement to get at 

 its objective, which is multiple use of the system. 



Mr. DeFazio. You said the courts are the only place to go. I am 

 a bit leery of resolving extraordinarily complex management issues 

 in the courts. They are even more limited than the scientists, in 

 my opinion. Do you discount the Council's plan and the Council's 

 efforts? 



Ms. BODI. No, I don't. What I meant to say is that is where peo- 

 ple are today. It is not that anyone, I think, who is involved thinks 

 that is a good way to go. It is that there is no negotiation forum. 



I don't think that the Council's plan is bad, but it is not a full 

 recovery plan. The Council itself has admitted that its plan is a 

 starting point, and not an ending point, and that is what I would 

 agree with also. 



As we deal with Endangered Species Act issues and whether al- 

 lowing almost all the juvenile fish to be killed in passing through 

 the dams and a large number of the adult fish and deciding wheth- 

 er that is jeopardy or no jeopardy, people find themselves in court. 

 There are specific milestones that we hit along the way, the Coun- 

 cil's plan doesn't have all the details of implementation, and it is 

 those annual milestones that we are in court on. The issue of 

 whether fish barging is consistent with the Endangered Species 

 Act; the issue of whether large mortalities are consistent with a no- 

 jeopardy decision. Those are the kinds of decisions that the Coun- 

 cil's plan doesn't address, those kinds of questions. 



So it is the real difficult day-to-day details that are in the courts 

 right now. 



Mr. DeFazio. Anyone have an3rthing else they want to add? 



Mr. Kreidler. Mr. Chairman, if I might, if I could follow up with 

 Mr. Sherrill on one other issue that I raised earlier. I tend to agree 

 that day-to-day operations can best be handled by a single entity. 



However, I do raise some questions on issues relating to rate- 

 making and budgeting, as to whether a board would be better able 

 to handle those t5T)es of decisions. Given the comments that you of- 

 fered, I was wondering what your response to that concept would 

 be. 



Mr. Sherrill. My first reaction is that we believe that the exist- 

 ing structure has too much regulation and too much oversight now. 

 The opposite extreme would be the administrator being the single 

 decision-maker, and that also would be very scary to us. 



The best answer from our opinion is to have an oversight board 

 made up of the rate-paying customers. We don't necessarily believe 

 that that would be acceptable to all constituents. So the answer 

 that I would provide you with would be to continue with the ad- 



