48 



that is not the best way to do it. Using the mechanism of price to 

 promote efficiency and conservation is a good idea, but it may be 

 that we cannot overcome that problem. 



Mr. Farr. So this bill could be a vehicle for solving some of the 

 administrative problems that 



Mr. Beard. Yes. But that is not going to be a problem until 

 about 1997 or 1998. We are doing the programmatic EIS, and until 

 we are finished with that and negotiate the contracts, we don't 

 need to fix that problem. So it is not a problem that has to be fixed 

 in the next two months. 



Mr. Farr. Well, do you have to do all the administrative fixes 

 that need to be done? Do you have adequate staff? Because it 

 seems to me that if we can't administratively handle that, even if 

 you jam the system with more law, you are not going to be able 

 to get that law implemented. 



Mr. Beard. I think everybody agrees we have adequate staff. It 

 is really great when you are leaving. You can say all kinds of 

 things. I think the staff has done a remarkable job. This is a com- 

 plex piece of legislation. These are complex issues. They are fun- 

 damentally important, and the people in the Bureau and the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service and the other Federal agencies have worked 

 very hard to try their best to meet the legislative deadlines. And 

 I think they have done a good job. 



Mr. Farr. I think we need to build some confidence into the sys- 

 tem right now, that if we could build that confidence, we could sub- 

 vert some of the lawsuits that I think have been filed and may be 

 filed. And let me just give you an example. Little Pajaro Valley in 

 Santa Cruz County, right on the — Pajaro River runs into the ocean, 

 we have big salt water intrusion problems there. We get all our 

 water right out of the aquifer. 



The best alternative the water management district has looked 

 at is essentially honoring the contract that they have entered into 

 for 19,000 acre feet from the CVPIA. But because they are sort of 

 the last in that, they have not gotten their commitment. And with 

 the EIS, I mean, they are told, "Well, we don't know whether we 

 can honor that 19,000 acre feet," and so they are left in this incred- 

 ible dilemma that the best solution for them is now tied up in es- 

 sentially administrative delay. 



I mean, that is a common sense approach. They have got a con- 

 tract out there. It is not for a heck of a lot of water, but we need 

 to somehow find a resolution to a problem like that before the 

 ocean beats them to the punch. 



Another question I would like to ask to Dan Nelson is essentially 

 the CVPIA currently allows the Secretary to reduce the refuge 

 water allocations by up to 25 percent. In times of drought or in 

 other water shortages, the bill changes the discretionary authority 

 to a mandatory duty if there is a shortage. And then the Secretary 

 must reduce refuge allocations. 



The question I have is why do you think that that change is nec- 

 essary for agriculture? And if indeed we are trying to base our deci- 

 sions on science, then how much water would be necessary for agri- 

 culture in situations like that? 



Mr. Nelson. First of all, to put that into context, the shortage 

 provisions that are in 1906 for refuge supplies, you have to under- 



