Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..,;_ r ~ <br /> <br />River water to help meet its burgeoning demands. Since the mainstream wa er <br /> <br />available to California was already over-allocated, SDCW A negotiated an ag eement <br /> <br />with lID in late 1997 (but not finally signed until, December 2002) to purcha e up to <br /> <br />200,000 AF of water annually that would be made available as the result of <br /> <br />conservation investments by lID and its farmers financed by the SDCW A pa. ments. <br /> <br />MWD agreed to transport the conserved water to SDCW A by exchange <br /> <br />through MWD's 242 mile long Colorado River Aqueduct. The agreement was subject <br /> <br />to a number of important conditions, including (1) California's enactment of <br /> <br />legislation providing $235 million to fund the lining of the MC and its Coachella <br /> <br />Branch, as well as conjunctive use storage programs necessary to implement <br /> <br />California's proposed Colorado River Water Use Plan to reduce its annual use to 4.4 <br /> <br />MAF when necessary, (2) separate "quantification" of each of the first three col ective <br /> <br />agricultural priorities under the Seven Party Agreement, and (3) implementaj ion by <br /> <br />the Secretary of revised Lake Mead operating criteria that would make more <br /> <br />"surplus" water available for allocation to California, Arizona, and Nevada under the <br /> <br />decree in Arizona v. California to keep MWD's 1.3 MAF Colorado River Aquedl ct <br /> <br /> <br />full through 2015. As to those conditions, (1) the California legislation has bee <br /> <br /> <br />enacted, (2) a 1999 Quantification Settlement Agreement ("QSA") would establi3h <br /> <br /> <br />individual entitlement "caps" for lID and Coachella Valley Water District and <br /> <br /> <br />allocate the burden of some 50,000 AF of Indian rights that were not addressed n the <br /> <br />33 <br />