73 



to come from the individual user. The water district boards, and 

 this includes water district boards on the buyer's side I think ulti- 

 mately as well as the seller's side, are going to set up bureaucratic 

 obstacles to making transfers really work as openly as would be 

 ideal for purposes of making water use in the state efficient. 



Mr. Miller. Well, if that is the case, then that raises even more 

 concern about the notion of contracts in perpetuity without quan- 

 tity being on the table. 



Mr. Graff. Well, my view on this is — ^the place where I think 

 Dan Nelson goes wrong in sajdng we ought to be treated exactly 

 like the other 80 percent is that the Federal 20 percent is indeed 

 different, in that the taxpayers have put an immense investment 

 into that part of the water supply. 



It is true, as he points out, that there are other water users in 

 the state who are much better situated than the Federal users in 

 that they have gotten water rights historically that are free, and 

 they are free to do with them what they want, including transfer 

 them. 



Mr. Miller. But, you know, that is something that the political 

 priorities in the state will have to sort out. 



Mr. Graff. Could change eventually, possibly. 



Mr. Miller. Could change. You know, I guess that is the old 

 transition from rural to urban. I wanted to ask you also on this 

 linkage between a reduction in the agricultural service area and re- 

 duction in the wildlife refuge water. And I wanted to ask Mr. 

 Kerry. Maybe you can answer now and then I can go to Mr. Kerry 

 on the second round. 



And one of the things we learned in the drought was the drought 

 started a lot earlier for fish and wildlife and habitat than it did for 

 all the rest of us in terms of human consumption or farming or 

 what have you in terms of the impacts that had to be dealt with. 



Mr. Graff. One of the concerns, and this also goes to the fishery 

 issue, is that H.R. 1906, as I understand it, would require the re- 

 duction by 25 percent of both waterfowl refuges and wildlife ref- 

 uges and the 800,000 acre feet of fishery dedication water, if any 

 ag contractor is shorted. Given that essentially, at least by my 

 judgment, the Bureau of Reclamation in most years is going to 

 short at least some contractors, that effectively reduces both sup- 

 plies by 25 percent — ^both environmental supplies. 



Mr. Miller. One of the testimonies started out here talking 

 about based upon good science, the linkage between what goes on 

 in an agricultural use of the land and what goes on in a refuge. 

 You know, making these mandatory reductions in law can't be 

 based upon good science. The two uses simply aren't linked. I will 

 wait and go to Mr. Kerry next. Unless you want to let Mr, Kerry 

 answer, and then I will be done. I mean, whatever you want to do. 



Mr, DooLiTTLE. OK Let us do it. OK, Mr. Kerry. I will go for 

 that deal, 



Mr, Miller, Yes, I wanted to just on that point, you obviously 

 have similar problems with this linkage where reductions would be 

 automatic and mandatory if an agricultural service had some re- 

 duction because of the declarations of the Bureau as to a drier, crit- 

 ical year or shortage, what have you? 



