Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c. <br /> <br />California agricultural agencies with claims to senior rights in the natural flow of the <br /> <br />Colorado River under state law, who feared that MWD would obtain a senior federal <br /> <br />contractual priority to their senior state appropriative rights. The dispute among the <br /> <br />potential water contractors in California as to their entitlements to Colorado River <br /> <br />water under the BCPA was resolved through the 1931 "Seven Party Agreement", <br /> <br />which established entitlements and priorities for the California agencies totaling <br /> <br />5,362,000 AF annually. <br />The Secretary's allocation of 5,362,000 AF to the California agencies, even <br /> <br />though California's normal year apportionment was 4.4 MAF, reflected overly <br /> <br />optimistic future water supply estimates at the time which were expected to make <br /> <br />substantial quantities of "surplus" water available at Lake Mead, to which California <br /> <br />was entitled to one-half under the BCPA. The Secretary incorporated the <br /> <br />recommended entitlements into general regulations in 1931, and later into the water <br /> <br />delivery contracts with the California agencies. The fact that the Seven Party <br /> <br />Agreement did not include (1) any proposed allocations for mainstream Indian <br /> <br />reservations (except that the Fort Yuma (Quechan) Indian Reservation was to be <br /> <br />served as part of the Reservation Division ofthe federal Yuma Reclamation Project), <br /> <br />which later received some 50,000 AF of entitlements in Arizona v. California or (2) <br /> <br />any specific quantities or priority dates for the individual agricultural agencies <br /> <br />collectively sharing the first three priorities has produced several critical problems <br /> <br />26 <br />