78 



there was no guarantee on the minimum amounts of water to ref- 

 uges — that we were in fact eliminating that — that is incorrect. 



Mr. Moss, we are struggling in terms of the transfers and the im- 

 pact on that, and the relationship to the right of a renewal of a con- 

 tract. 



Mr. Quinn testifying, on behalf of some of the urban users, ref- 

 erenced the point that if he was going to be interested in transfer- 

 ring water even outside the project, if the contractor doesn't have 

 an absolute right to a quantity of water even beyond the expiration 

 of that contract, it certainly would reduce his interest in engaging 

 in a long-term contract for transfer. 



Mr. Moss. I would assume so, and I think he agreed to that as 

 well. And as somebody who engages regularly in buying water on 

 behalf of our districts, that certainly would be the case. Nobody 

 wants to do a deal if it is going to get jerked out from under them 

 in a couple of years. 



Mr. DOOLEY. Now, obviously in the Friant, and your situation 

 might be different than in some others, but when you look at 20 

 years, where do you think the most water is going to be trans- 

 ferred? Do you think the greatest volume of water is going to be 

 transferred from ag to urban, or would you guess it would be from 

 ag to ag? 



Mr. Moss. Over the next 20-year period, I would say it is clearly 

 going to be ag to ag. I mean, we have basically now still permanent 

 water shortages on the west side of the Valley in particular. They 

 will be in the market each and every year for considerable quan- 

 tities of water. 



Mr. DoOLEY. And the concern that some people have in terms of 

 the districts having the right of veto over that, could you perhaps 

 explain why you think the districts should have that right of veto? 

 And I would also be interested to know if you would at this point 

 support some type of appeals process to some other body that could 

 review the merits of that appeal? 



Mr. Moss. What is contained in H.R. 1906 I think was somewhat 

 of a tradeoff, and it followed these lines. The 20 percent minimum 

 that was required that districts didn't have the veto on was re- 

 placed with the idea that districts do have that veto power, but rec- 

 ognizes that that could only happen under a certain set of estab- 

 lished criteria. 



We certainly would be open to the notion of having somebody re- 

 view that for appropriateness, and we would certainly believe that 

 if we were inappropriate in applying that criteria that the issue 

 could be clearly taken to the Courts. Whether the Secretary is ap- 

 propriate to do that review or not, I would be hesitant to say at 

 this point in time. 



I think what Mr. Quinn was expressing relative to the Areias 

 transfer was clearly the recognition that you just can't roll the local 

 communities, that they are going to be involved in these decisions 

 one way or the other, and that to try to do that just doesn't make 

 a whole lot of sense, and that is clearly their recognition. 



My understanding relative to that transfer, by the way, is that 

 it is progressing, only this time they are in negotiations and discus- 

 sions with the district as compared to with the individual. So my 

 understanding is that transfer will probably go forward under the 



