50 



Mr. Farr. We will suggest that if those cities would put urban 

 limit lines so that they would preserve agriculture and keep urban 

 sprawl. What I see happening is you can buy water for agriculture 

 and then turn around and use that water for houses, and I don't 

 think that is fair public policy. 



Mr. Smith. I agree. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. We would like to thank the witnesses. Yes? 

 Well, we have got two other panels to go. Is it your desire to have 

 a second round of questioning? 



Mr. Miller. It is, Mr. Chairman. Under the rules, we are enti- 

 tled to question each of the witnesses, and I would request my 

 rights under that rule, as with any other member who wants to do 

 so. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. 



Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Quinn, can you lay 

 out for me, and some of it is hit upon in the combined testimony, 

 but your view on the long-term contracts and the renewal of long- 

 term contracts? In this case, we would specifically talk about agri- 

 cultural contracts, and then we can go to municipal contracts if you 

 would like. But, first, what your view or what your coalition posi- 

 tion is on those contracts? 



Mr. Quinn. We have two principles, and let me start with the ob- 

 servation we don't think anybody has come up with the right words 

 yet as far as we are concerned. Our two principles — first is water 

 supply certainly for entities suppling water to an economies that 

 depend on a sustained long-term supply. We are sympathetic with 

 the notion that there should be renewals assured by the Congress 

 for people tr3ring to meet urban or agricultural water supplies. So 

 on the one hand, we think it is appropriate for the Congress to es- 

 tablish a policy that says, "Your economy will have the water that 

 it needs over the long-term." 



On the other hand, and the more difficult portion from our per- 

 spective, is we think it is imperative that the terms and conditions 

 of those contracts are changeable over time to reflect the needs in 

 agriculture, urban, and environmental circumstances at the time of 

 renewal. 



So what we are looking for is a process that on the one hand pro- 

 vides assurances to a local economy that it will have the water sup- 

 ply part of its infrastructure over the long-term, and on the other 

 hand that the terms and conditions of those contracts will be 

 changeable so that they can reflect, as necessarj, changing cir- 

 cumstances in the future. 



Mr. Miller. When vou say changeable, you mean as to what? 



Mr. Quinn. As to all terms and conditions in the contract — price, 

 quantity, other provisions. We would generally like to see language 

 that allows change in a flexible manner, recognizes the importance 

 of change without very many restrictions on what could be changed 

 in the future. 



Mr. Miller. As I understand the language currently, it would 

 change it from a discretionary power of the Secretary to renew the 

 contracts to a mandatory renewal after the first 25 years? Under 

 the law now you would get 25, and then it would be discretionary 

 at that point. Under 1906, they would turn that into mandatory. 

 So that is inconsistent with 



