My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12533
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12533
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:32 PM
Creation date
7/30/2007 11:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.400
Description
Colorado River Operations and Accounting - Deliveries to Mexico
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/2000
Author
Robert Jerome Glennon - Peter W Culp
Title
The Last Green Lagoon - How and Why the Bush Administration Should Save the Colorado River Delta - Excerpted from Ecology Law Quarterly - Volume 28-Number 4 - 01-01-02
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />"''1..", l'0f <br />lhJ 1. J (j 't <br /> <br />940 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY lAW QUARTERLY <br /> <br />[Vol. 28:903 <br /> <br />i- <br /> <br />Allocation to Municipalities: 1.212 maf, split into two <br />priorities: <br />Fourth priority: split between the Metropolitan Water <br />District (MWD) of southern California and the City of Los <br />Angeles, for 550,000 acre-feet; and <br />Fifth priority: split between MWD and L.A. for 550,000 <br />acre-feet, and San Diego for 112,000 acre-feet. <br />Additional Allocation to Agriculture: <br />Sixth priority: 0.3 maf, to lID, with a small share for PVID; <br />and <br />. Seventh (and last) priority: all remaining water to other <br />agricultural interests. 244 <br />Thus, the Seven- party Agreement daringly provided for the <br />allocation of 5.36+ maf, or 1 maf more than California's <br />allotment under the BCPA. To divert this amount, California <br />would use the unused apportionments of the Upper Basin and <br />the other Lower Basin states, as well as the occasional "surplus" <br />flows resulting from heavy flow years. If California were ever <br />limited to 4.4 maf, however, MWD and San Diego stood to lose <br />662,000 af - half of MWD's and all of San Diego's Colorado River <br />supply. <br />No one considered this to be a serious problem when surplus <br />flows were plentifu1.' southem California's future cities were <br />barely even large towns, and urban water development elsewhere <br />in the Lower Basin seemed unlikely. After all, in the 1930s Las <br />Vegas was an anonymous, tumbleweed settlement, Denver a <br />"cow town,"and Salt Lake City a small agricultural center.245 <br />Phoenix and Tucson were only small towns, and many of the <br />engineers who built the CAP were not yet even bom. <br />. As the Upper and Lower Basins developed, however, the <br />margin of safety for municipal water supplies shrank rapidly. In <br />the 1980's, MWD and the San Diego County Water Authority <br />(SDCWA) began circulating proposals for "ag-to-urban" water <br />transfers. 246 Predictably, these proposals met with strong <br />resistance.247 A 1989 MWD /IID water conservation agreement, in <br />which MWD sought 106,100 af of water obtained from <br /> <br />" <br />II <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />244. See id. <br />245. Between 1930 and 2000, the population of Las Vegas grew from 18.000 to <br />1.5 million; Denver from 356,000 to 2.1 million; and Salt Lake City-Ogden from <br />260,000 to 1.3 million. See Metropolitan (MSA) Population Data by Decade. at <br />htip: / /recenter. tamu.edu/ datajpopmd. <br />246. See Rita Schmidt Sudman, In the News: Colorado River Update, WESTERN <br />WATER, Jan.-Feb. 1998 at 3. <br />247. See id. at 3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.