Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~.'1!" ""'83 <br />lh.d. ;) <br /> <br />2002] <br /> <br />THE lAST GREEN LAGOON <br /> <br />939 <br /> <br />resolution of the tension between ~~. II (B)(4) and II (B)(6) of the <br />Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v.California. 242 This banking <br />provision has tremendous potential to facilitate future water <br />marketing in the Lower Basin, assuming that the states will <br />authorize users to participate. Nonetheless. it is likely that water <br />marketing will only increase the pressure on the water of the <br />Colorado, transforming whatever surplus water may exist in a <br />given year into a commodity that can be diverted, stored, and <br />sold to the highest bidder. <br /> <br />C. Moving Water from Agricultural to Municipal Use: The Seven <br />party Agreement, the "4.4 Plan, " and the "Quantification <br />Settlement Agreement" <br /> <br />The Arizona Water Bank broke the stalemate on the Lower <br />Colorado, triggering the involvement of then-Secretary of the <br />Interior Babbitt and a series of important changes. California, <br />which was still using 5.2 maf of water, suddenly faced the very <br />real possibility that it could be restricted to its 4.4 maf <br />apportionment - a disaster for Southern California cities. Under <br />a 1930's-era pact called the Seven party Agreement, southern <br />California's cities were last in line for Colorado River water. and <br />thus first to be cut off whenever demand outstripped supply.243 <br />The Seven party Agreement established the priority and <br />allocation of rights to California's share of the Colorado as <br />follows: <br />Initial Allocation to Agriculture: 3.85 maf, split into three <br />priorities: <br />First priority: Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) for <br />irrigation of 104,500 acres; <br />Second priority: Yuma Project (25,000 acres); and <br />Third priority: split among <br />a) Imperial Irrigation District (lID) and Coachella Valley <br />Water District (CVWD) and <br />b) PVID, for irrigation of 16,000 acres. <br /> <br />Lower Division States, 64 FR 58.986, 58,989 (November l, 1999). Given the highly <br />politicized nature of tribal water issues, state authorization seems unlikely; however, <br />the rule does reserve the posSibility of independent action by the Secretary. See 43 <br />C.F.R.!j 414. 1 (b)(2) (2001). <br />242. See Arizona. 376 U.S. at 343. <br />243. See Boulder Canyon Project, Agreement Requesting Apportionment of <br />California's Share of the Colorado River Among the Applicants in the State (the <br />"Seven party Agreement"), Aug. 18, 1931. reprinted in NATHANSON, supra note 45, at 1- <br />27. <br />