61 



out to find 2.5 million acre feet of water in the urban sector, it is 

 a much different situation as we have already done in conservation. 

 So the question is you have an allocation that was based upon the 

 California of the 1940's, and should that allocation remain in per- 

 petuity? 



And if you lock off with the veto power transfers and you have 

 contract renewal and perpetuity, then that water is simply not 

 available for reallocation. That was the situation we found our- 

 selves in before the passage of the CVPIA. That is why the urban 

 districts and the financial communities and others supported this 

 kind of change because they believed that transfers was one of the 

 ways, and long-term but discretionary renewal after the first 25 

 years was the other way to do that. 



So if I understand what you are sajdng, I mean, you basically 

 block off that 80 percent of the water because the other people in 

 the East Bay Municipal Utility District or in Contra Costa as we 

 have people who come and ask for more permits and those districts 

 decide, they then decide they are either going to charge us more 

 because they are trjdng to stretch out the water. 



They make you use a smaller toilet, a smaller showerhead. They 

 charge you more for irrigation water or for, you know, planting. 

 The large homes in Contra Costa pay more than places in Berkeley 

 and OaJkland; where they have different climates and all of that. 

 Tliat is all going on to try to stretch that out of the urban area. 

 I am just saying down the road I don't think California can be put 

 in a straitjacket of allocations that were made in the 1940's. That 

 is the dynamics of the economy, so to speak. 



Mr. Nelson. Actually, California is under the straitjacket of a 

 water allocation scheme that goes back, you know, to the mid- 

 1800's when it developed its water rights and water allocation 

 scheme in general. And I think at issue here is are we really lock- 

 ing up the current uses of this water by allowing for contracts to 

 be renewed after 25 years? And my contention is that we are not 

 locking up 



Mr. Miller. But you are not allowing for modifications in quan- 

 tity, are you? 



Mr. Nelson. We will take a look at the different stipulations re- 

 garding the renewal of those contracts, but having said that, there 

 is no other water user in the state that has to look at modifying 

 their water use renewals other than through certain criteria under 

 state law. We are willing to come under that same criteria. We wel- 

 come the opportunity to come under that same criteria. We aren't 

 locking up this water through contract renewals 



Mr. Miller. You are. 



Mr. Nelson [continuing], any more than 80 percent of the water 

 any more 



Mr. Miller. You have a couple of minutes left here, but you 

 haven't shown me yet how any water escapes your system. 



Mr. Nelson. It escapes the system in amy other way it escapes 

 any other system of the 80 percent of the other users. 



Mr. Miller. OK So we made a determination. The national Con- 

 gress passed on this. It was supported by an overwhelming major- 

 ity in the State of California. It wasn't a consensus, and now the 

 decision was made this is a vehicle by which water will be reallo- 



