54 



course, Mr, Patterson was there, but we had discussion about what 

 really did constitute a credit toward the 800,000 acre foot alloca- 

 tion. And it was almost like a game of who is on first, you know. 



You know, questions may have also included things like, "Does 

 this constitute a credit toward the 800,000 acre foot?" "Well, I don't 

 know." "Is it light or dark outside?" "Is this Saturday or Tuesday?" 

 or, "Did you have a bagel or toast for breakfast?" You know, it was 

 almost like those kinds of requirements. You had to ask those types 

 of questions in order to find out if it indeed was a credit to the 

 800,000 acre feet. 



There is a lot of misinformation. There is a lot of disagreement 

 as to what constitutes a credit on that 800,000 acre foot allocation. 

 And if you believe in administrative fixes, could you propose to me 

 how you could clarify that then? 



Mr. Beard. Well, I think the simple answer to your question is 

 you are right. When the statute was passed, it says that the use 

 is for the purpose of primary wildlife habitat but also could be 

 counted for other uses such as Bay-Delta water quality and endan- 

 gered species. 



And we think that the process that we have proposed for this 

 year, working with all the people in this room to try to put together 

 something that is reasonable, is going to be an effective process. It 

 is our best effort to try to make it work this year. We are going 

 to learn from this year. It may be that there are changes we are 

 going to have to make, and procedures that we are going to have 

 to change, and calculations that we are going to have to change. 



Listen. I have been about as frustrated as everybody else in this 

 room over the 800,000 acre feet because it is not an easy thing. In 

 a general sense, it represents an expression that we need to com- 

 mit water for certain purposes, and that is understandable. The 

 question of how do you do it and how do you account for it becomes 

 the more difficult one. 



Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pombo is recognized. 



Mr. Pombo. Just to follow up, Mr. Beard, it is my understanding 

 that water districts are required to come up with the water con- 

 servation plan. What authority does the Bureau have to issue 

 water conservation plans and to implement water conservation 

 plans? 



Mr. Beard. You mean to approve the plans? 



Mr. Pombo. To draw them up, to approve them. 



Mr. Beard. Well, we don't draw them up. We have drawn up 

 guidelines on what has to be in the plans. 



Mr. Pombo. For the districts? In their water conservation plans, 

 are they suggesting the tiered pricing as a water conservation 

 measure? 



Mr. Beard. Yes. 



Mr. Pombo. Or did that come from you? 



Mr. Beard. No. It is in the criteria that we specified what ought 

 to be in a plan. The Congress passed legislation in 1982 directing 

 that every district that receives water from Reclamation put for- 

 ward a water conservation plan. And then in the CVPIA it goes 

 further, laying out more specific requirements for districts receiv- 

 ing CVP water. 



