58 



A lot of people are using 80 percent of what they used to use, 

 and they are paying a hell of a lot more for it because of the prior- 

 ities of trying to keep water where it returns the best use through- 

 out the state. The State Water Plan has dealt with that. The Met- 

 ropolitan Water District, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, East Bay 

 MUD — ^they have all dealt with that. 



And now the agriculture community is dealing with that. But 

 what 1906 suggests is the hand is on 80 percent of CVP water in 

 perpetuity, and that is simply inconsistent with the needs of every 

 other sector of the California economy. 



Mr. Radanovich. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Miller. Pardon? 



Mr. Radanovich. Point of order to the Chairman please. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. State your point. 



Mr. Radanovich. If we are going to continue to go around and 

 around on this, can we limit the time — ^bring it down from five to 

 two minutes please? 



Mr. Miller. No, we can't. 



Mr. DooLlTTLE. Well, the rules say if we go to another round of 

 questions, which we are in — it is my intent to have this be the final 

 round on this panel — ^the rules do say five minutes. 



Mr. Radanovich. I would note the red light. 



Mr. Nelson. Can I respond to the last statement briefly? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me begin my time, and you can respond on 

 my time. Gro ahead. 



Mr. Nelson. Thank you very much. I don't think by ongoing re- 

 newals of these contracts. Congressman, prohibit the movement of 

 this water for future use in California any more than we anticipate 

 there to be no movement of the other 80 percent of California's 

 water. It essentially puts them on even grounds with the other 80 

 percent of California, and just the opposite. It allows for equal 

 movement and equal opportunity for the movement of that water. 



So I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree is by renew- 

 ing these contracts doesn't prohibit the movement of that water. It 

 puts them on equal grounds with the other 80 percent of the users 

 in the State of California for the appropriate future use of that 

 water. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to get back to the transfers of the 

 water. The present law gives districts a veto over transfers involv- 

 ing more than 20 percent, does it not? All we are doing in this bill 

 is indicating that the districts have the authority to give the ap- 

 proval over any amount. If they do not give it, they have to pro- 

 vide, subject to a list of criteria in the bill, reasons why the trans- 

 fer would have an adverse impact which then can be challenged in 

 Court. 



So we are attempting to facilitate the transfer of water with the 

 bill, not to inhibit it. And it seems perfectly reasonable that we 

 take that tack since the testimony indicates that these transfers, 

 in fact, have been inhibited since CVPIA in having to go through — 

 there is a fairly long list of criteria set forth in the existing statute. 

 And Mr. Nelson's testimony was that that had slowed down to 30 

 or 60 days what used to be done I guess in a matter of hours. 



Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, on that point? 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. 



