“She made the decision based on the current hydrology that she did not see that, that was warranted this year, but then she went on to lay out the other three parts of her decision. The second part was to first assert or acknowledge that she as Secretary does have both the power and responsibility to make such changes if they are warranted. The third part of her decision was that she directed reclamation, next year, in 2006 to again undertake a mid-year review if the hydrology turns dryer. And the fourth part of her decision then was to try and acknowledge that a number of the issues which the upper and lower basin states made us aware of, are issues that really cannot be properly handled in this annual operating plan process but should be looked at and worked on together in other processes.”