Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />lID to the Authority is authorized under both state and federal law <br />and is not prohibited by lID's contract with the Secretary of the <br />Interior (Secretary) or by other contracts lID has made with other <br />users of Colorado River water. This applies to water available <br />under lID's present perfected rights as well as its rights under <br />priorities 3 and 6 of its water delivery contract with the <br />Secretary. Additionally, Reclamation's policy and actions clearly <br />indicate an intent to favor transfers of conserved water pursuant <br />to California law. <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF AUTHORITIES <br /> <br />1. lID's existinq water riqhts are recoqnized and supported <br />by provisions in its contracts with the Secretary and other users <br />of Colorado River water. <br /> <br />Unlike Coachella and the Metropolitan Water District of <br />Southern California (MWD) who acquired their rights to Colorado <br />River water by contract, lID acquired water rights before the turn <br />of the century under California law. lID's predecessors <br />appropriated approximately seven million acre-feet of Colorado <br />River water and, at the time of passage of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act in 1929, lID was diverting enough Colorado River water <br />to serve approximately 425,000 acres each year. In the Arizona v. <br />California decisions and decrees (commencing with Arizona I, 373 US <br />546 (1963)), the United States Supreme Court recognized that the <br />1922 Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act <br />protected lID's present perfected rights and held that lID's <br />present perfected rights up to 2.6 million acre-feet per year would <br />have priority over other rights, must be respected by the Secretary <br />and were separate, apart, and superior to any other entitlements or <br />rights that lID holds based on contracts or agreements. lID's <br />contractual rights guarantee delivery from water available through <br />its present perfected rights, as well as delivery of water <br />available under priorities 3 and 6. <br /> <br />Consistent with the Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project <br />Act, Article 17 of lID's contract with the Secretary also <br />emphasizes that lID's contract rights are "without prejudice to any <br />other or additional rights which the District [lID] may now have <br />not inconsistent with the provisionsll of the article. In Brvant v. <br />Yellen, 447 US 352 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held <br />that the federal government has an lIobligationll to satisfy lID's <br />present perfected rights, which originate under state law and lIare <br />to be interpreted in the light of state law." Finally, the balance <br />of lID's water rights included in priorities 3 and 6 have their <br />basis in late 19th Century appropriations made by lID's <br />predecessors and thereby also originate under state law and are to <br />be interpreted in light of state law. <br /> <br />3 <br />