Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, . <br /> <br />additional supplies, while Arizona remains concerned about its supply in "sh rtage" <br /> <br /> <br />years because of California's 4.4 MAF priority under the 1968 Act. In respon e, <br /> <br />reductions of user demand and a number of projects for the transfer of conse <br /> <br />water from agricultural to urban users have been consummated or are in the mal <br /> <br />stages of negotiation and approval by the Secretary. <br /> <br />a. California <br /> <br />In the late 1980's MWD instituted a major incentives program to induc its <br /> <br />member agencies to promote installation of water saving plumbing equip men by <br /> <br />their customers, as well as other conservation efforts of its own and by those a lencies. <br /> <br />These efforts are estimated to have conserved 740,000 AF through 2002. In <br /> <br /> <br />MWD and, later, one of its member agencies, the San Diego County Water Au hority, <br /> <br />took the initiative on a number of major water transfers from the California C lorado <br /> <br />River agricultural contractors. This effort was complicated by the fact that the <br /> <br />Secretary had never promulgated regulations or guidelines for the transfer or <br /> <br />leasing of water entitlements among the BCP A contractors. Although the Sec etary <br /> <br /> <br />was held to have broad regulatory authority in Arizona v. California over use <br /> <br />Lower Colorado River mainstream water, no comprehensive program for <br /> <br />administration of those entitlements was proposed until the early 1990's, when <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation circulated for comment proposed regulations which dea , <br /> <br />inter alia, with (1) the transfer or leasing of contractual entitlements, (2) criteri for <br /> <br />29 <br />