Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOU3'79 <br /> <br />criteria for Colorado River Reservoirs are reevaluated every 5 years <br />with better evaluation techniques and changing hydrologic, demand, <br />institutional and political conditions, making today's conclusions <br />subject to change. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />Reclamation anticipates that a shortage determination would have the <br />following effects on water availability: <br /> <br />California would receive 4.4 million acre-feet; <br /> <br />CAP and other Arizona' 4th priority users would be limited to a <br />total of one million acre-feet; <br /> <br />Nevada would bear shortage equaling 4% of u.s. shortages; <br /> <br />Mexico would bear shortage in proportion to u.s. shortages. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Reclamation also recommends that the distribution of surplus and <br />unused apportionment follow the proposal presented in the TC's <br />Progress Report NO.4, dated June 1, 1995. Surplus volumes should be <br />limited to the amount needed to satisfy total Lower Division (u.s.) <br />demand, unless the surplus is determined on the basis of avoiding <br />flood control releases. Surpluses are allocated based on the formula <br />provided in Arizona v California: (CA-50% / AZ-46% / NV-4%). If a <br />state cannot use its surplus apportionment then it should be <br />allocated as an unused apportionment. <br /> <br />In distributing unused apportionment, if only one state needs it, <br />that state's needs would be met up to the amount of the unused <br />apportionment. If two states have needs, the unused apportionment <br />would be divided as follows: <br /> <br />If it is Arizona unused apportionment, Nevada would receive the <br />first 60,000 AF for direct use or off-stream banking, California <br />