46 



temperature controls. I believe that is because of the CVPIA that 

 you had the authority to do that, and that was under the CVPIA 

 that you were acting. So if we go back to 1993, you set aside the 

 800,000. In 1994, I know of 200,000—1 am not sure of the entire 

 system, if there was anything else — so to say that this is the first 

 year you have done it is not exactly correct. It may be the first — 

 well, it is not even the first year that you have done a full 800,000 

 so 



Mr. Patterson. That is what I said. This is the first year with- 

 out extenuating circumstances — 1993, brand new law, very quick 

 prescription made for operation of the 800,000. 1994, we had the 

 injunction during part of the year. And 1995 is the year underway. 

 Part of the problem with the 200,000 earmarked — and you are cor- 

 rect — there was additional storage held in New Melones — is the 

 measurement of the 800,000 is done on a yield basis. 



It is not only how much did you have to keep in storage, so that 

 right or wrong was the decision that was made, and that is the rea- 

 son we did it. 



Mr. PoMBO. I would like to ask Mr. Beard one more question, 

 and it has to do with the legislative fix. On areas where you are 

 in agreement or at least partial agreement with what we want to 

 do in terms of a legislative fix, I don't understand why you would 

 not want us to do that and would only want to do it administra- 

 tively. That is confusing to me because, you know, regardless of 

 this Administration or who your successor will be, we don't know 

 who is going to be there six months from now. We don't know who 

 is going to be there two years from now. 



And it would seem like if we can come to a consensus on what 

 it should say and what the intention was or what we learned over 

 the three years of implementation, that we should make those 

 changes so that your agency is bound by it, but also the water 

 users have some certainty in knowing this is what the law is, and 

 this is what we mean by that so that you don't get an injunction 

 against you or that you don't get a lawsuit against you. 



I am a little bit confused as to why you would not want that. I 

 could understand in areas where you disagree with this, but I 

 think there is a number of areas where you do agree with us. 



Mr. Beard. We have two reasons. Well, first of all, let me say 

 to you that where there is consensus among all the parties, the 

 form by which you lock in the agreement is to me less important 

 than the fact that you have reached consensus. 



There are probably two reasons why legislation is not the best 

 way to go. First is that things change, and, when you reach agree- 

 ment and you lock it in legislatively, over time conditions change, 

 and legislation is a very difficult thing to change. One of the rea- 

 sons we haven't moved a bill (You move a bill on the CVP about 

 once every 20 years) is for the very reasons we have had this morn- 

 ing. 



It is a very contentious enterprise, and it takes a long time. So 

 that if conditions do change and you are locked into a legislative 

 fix of some kind, it is difficult. And one of the best examples of that 

 is Trinity. At the time that the Trinity division was authorized in 

 the early 1950's, the commitment was made that they were guaran- 



