Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000243 <br /> <br />Six State Proposal <br />Straw Man Draft <br />Includes Fassett and Mutz comments <br />11/4/98 <br /> <br />California demonstrate a serious commitment to reduce its water use before entertaining <br /> <br />discussions of transitory reservoir operating criteria that might facilitate that reduction. <br /> <br />The Six States now believe that a reasonable draft plan has been formulated by California <br /> <br />and sufficient commitment to the plan's implementation has been demonstrated by water users in <br /> <br />California to allow the initiation of discussions on new tempOfa:r~ interim res~ <br /> <br />~ The pUlpose of this paper is to describe the parameters of new opcratingthe <br /> <br />G;terim cri~that would be acceptable to the Six States. <br /> <br />II. Consistency with the Law of the River <br /> <br /> <br />It goes without saying that the any n:c.w, tempolary(lii~ o~ting c~ implemented <br /> <br />to assist California in its program to eliminate its dependence on Colorado River water above its <br /> <br />basic apportionment must be consistent with the Law of the River. Of particular importance in <br /> <br />developing the ~~~ill be the apportionment system specified by the United States <br /> <br />Supreme Court for distributing all water in the Colorado River mainstream among the Lower <br /> <br />Division States of Arizona, California and Nevada. Any water diverted into one of the three <br /> <br />Lower Division States must fit within one of three categories: <br /> <br />a) The water diverted is within that state's basic apportionment. Article <br />-Ii ~ II Ca..- '. <br />II(B)(1) ofthe Decree, 374 U.S. 340 (1964). <br /> <br />b) The water diverted is water that has been declared by the Secretary of the <br /> <br />Interior as surplus water available above the 7.5 mafbasic apportionment available to the <br /> <br />Lower Division States. It must also be recognized that, of any amount declared to be <br /> <br />2 <br />