Laserfiche WebLink
<br />deliveries in shortage years. But the water supply and demand predictions 0 70 <br /> <br />years ago have not matched reality. In the early 1990's, the other Basin Sta es <br /> <br />became seriously concerned about the extent of California's use, which has r nged <br /> <br />from 4.5 to 5.2 MAF over the past 10 years, and urged California to find ways to live <br /> <br />within its normal year 4.4 MAF apportionment when necessary. Fortunately Article <br /> <br />II(B)(6) of the Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 342 <br /> <br />(1964), provides that the Secretary may make a state's unused apportionmen <br /> <br />temporarily available to another state on an annual basis, but with the expre s <br /> <br />caveat that "no rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reaso of <br /> <br />[such] use". Consequently, Califumia has long been meeting a substantial p01ion of <br /> <br />its requirements by use of Arizona's and Nevada's unused apportion-menls af <br /> <br /> <br />more recently, with its use of water which the Secretary has declared to be SjlUS <br /> <br /> <br />under the 1964 decree, of which California is entitled to one half. However, N vada <br /> <br />and Arizona are currently using all of their annual apportionments. <br /> <br />4. The Instrastate Allocation of Interstate Apportionments <br /> <br />a. California <br /> <br />The Secretary entered into the first water delivery contract under the B P A <br /> <br />in 1930 with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), an <br /> <br />urban water district formed to contract with the Secretary for a water supply fo the <br /> <br />Southern California coastal plain. That action generated concern among the <br /> <br />25 <br />