40 



holders committee or what have you to work this through? What 

 happened with that? 



Mr. Beard. Well, we went out to the various interest groups that 

 we deal with on a regular basis and asked for their views about 

 the possibility of setting up an advisory committee of some kind 

 under the appropriate Federal laws. 



And I think the conclusion that was reached by all the various 

 interests was they weren't interested in having a formal advisory 

 body created. They didn't think that it was necessary, and they felt 

 that the processes and procedures that we have been using for pub- 

 lic outreach were more than sufficient to ensure that they were en- 

 gaged on a day-to-day basis. 



Mr. Miller. Well, is there stakeholder involvement or isn't there 

 stakeholder involvement? 



Mr. Beard. Oh, there is continual stakeholder involvement. We 

 are holding meetings almost every day on all the various provi- 

 sions. The Act itself requires somewhere near 100 separate actions 

 to take place, and most of those actions are underway at the 

 present time. About 10 of those are subject to rulemaking proce- 

 dures and will take longer for final rules to be in place. But we 

 have had innumerable meetings. There is also no shortage of brief- 

 ings, and we have made a conscious effort to do that. 



Mr. Miller. Well, there seems to be a rub between your inter- 

 pretation and your colleagues' at the table in terms of you cite a 

 number of things that you have done administratively. Have the 

 stakeholders presented you with a consensus package, if you will, 

 on administrative changes? Has there been agreement at the stake- 

 holder level that has been presented to you and saying, 'This is 

 what we" 



Mr. Beard. Nothing to fit that description, no. There hasn't been 

 anybody walking in the door and laying something down on the 

 table. I think this bill would represent the most comprehensive list 

 of suggested changes; representing one viewpoint or a number of 

 viewpoints, if you will. 



Mr. Miller. So the notion that there are these administrative 

 changes that are just hanging out there because the Bureau or the 

 Secretary or somebody hasn't gone along with them is not quite ac- 

 curate because one of those recommendations may, in fact, be op- 

 posed by another stakeholder? Is that correct? 



Mr. Beard. Sure. We made a number of administrative changes 

 in our practices through the contracting procedures. We have also 

 made a number of changes through letters or other administrative 

 decisionmaking processes, and we will continue to do that. 



It is not like we don't talk to the people at the table and the peo- 

 ple in the audience here on a regular basis. We are in contact on 

 a daily basis discussing all these issues. And we have had interrup- 

 tions now and then, but we have proven that when we get together, 

 sit around a table, and people are serious about it, we can forge 

 compromises and consensus such as the Bay-Delta Accord. 



Mr. Miller. Back to the in-project transfers, have you dis- 

 approved any of those? 



Mr. Beard. Any of the in-basin? No. 



Mr. Miller. Those requirements that you talked about are ques- 

 tions of whether or not it confers additional rights and/or is in com- 



