51 



Mr. QuiNN. We believe that it is necessary to add to that some 

 process that will assure that there is adequate ability to change 

 terms and conditions of contracts when they are, in fact, renewed. 



Mr. Miller. One of the intents obviously was to try to bring 

 water law and the authority to deal with the diversity of the State 

 of California in terms of water users so that we could make con- 

 temporary decisions based upon contemporary knowledge and situ- 

 ation. 



And that obviously includes the ability to move quantity, but it 

 is very difficult to see how you do much about quantity in urban 

 areas where you have people who are down in three-bedroom, two- 

 bath homes, with all due respect, and using water for daily suste- 

 nance of themselves. We could go through water conservation and 

 all that, but eventually you are talking about sustaining human 

 life. 



And so the question starts to become where is the shock absorber 

 in the system? It is in the environment. It is in agriculture. Be- 

 cause although it obviously impacts farmers, families, and commu- 

 nities, at some point it also gets down to the question of whether 

 it is cotton or melons or whatever the various agricultural products 

 of California. 



The keeping open of the Secretary or at some point down the 

 road perhaps it will be the governor or the director of water re- 

 sources if the nature of this project changes — that flexibility it 

 seems to me to be absolute paramount in terms of the future water 

 needs and the competing needs of the State of California. Do you 

 agree or disagree? 



Mr. QuiNN. Well, let me clarify that from Metropolitan's perspec- 

 tive looking from the outside of the CVP service area to the inside. 

 One of the areas we are looking to for flexibility is voluntary trans- 

 fers, and in that respect, this argument cuts both ways. If we nego- 

 tiate for a transfer, generally longer term transfers under some cir- 

 cumstances are desirable, and we basically would think we ought 

 to be subject to the same criteria as a transfer if we acquire a long- 

 term water supply. 



On the one hand, we would like to know that to some degree we 

 will be able to count on that water supply. At the same time, we 

 are amenable to the notion that we should be subject to changing 

 terms and conditions under which that supply is delivered in the 

 future. 



Mr. Miller. But at some point the water supply — if I enter into 

 a long-term transfer with you in the first year of my 25 years and 

 you get a 25-year transfer, that is long-term. But at some point in 

 the next 25 years should I really still be empowered to be the mid- 

 dle man, if you will, the middle person here to convey that water 

 which many of your taxpayers already paid for? 



Mr. QuiNN. Well, I think ultimately 



Mr. Miller, I mean, now I am no longer a farmer selling you my 

 water. I am talking about renewing my annuity. 



Mr. QuiNN. The first part of our position. Congressman, is that 

 we don't think it is appropriate to go to a local area and say, "And 

 we might cut your water supply off in its entirety in 25 years." We 

 have got a 75-year contract for state supplies that is renewable. We 

 have got no term in our Colorado River supplies. We are willing to 



