WSPC03421

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 12/1/1964
• Title: AZ Vs CA - Arizona V California and Pacific Southwest Water Problems - California Assembly Interim Committee Reports - 1963-1965 - Volume 26-Number 13
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

0J2020

ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 23

The Seven Party Agreement
The Secretary of the Interior contracted with water users beginning
in 1930. At the request of the Secretary, however, the various water
users in California signed an agreement on August IS, 1931 setting
forth relative priorities among the California users. This agreement is
known as the Seven Party Agreement. Its terms were reeommended
by the State Division of Water Resources and the Secretary of the
Interior incorporated these priorities in September 1931 in regula.
tions relating to contracts for the storage and delivery of mainstream
water impounded by Hoover Dam. The provisions of the agreement
are included in all these eontraets8
The various priorities resulting from this agreement are as follows:
(when more thau one ageuey is listed in a priority the rights of eaeh
"are equal in priority. ")

A mount
Agency (acr'e~feet)
Palo Verde Irrigation District (district lands in 1931) ___Unspecified *
Yuma Project (Bureau of Reclnmation)_______________ ____ Unspecified *
(a) Imperial lrrig-ation District } U s c'fi 1*
(h) Palo Verde Irrigation District (16,000 mesa acres) --- n pe 1 e<
Total of Priorities I, II, and III __________...__._________ 3,8;'0,000 t
Metropolitan 'Vater District and/or City of Los Angeles t-- 550,000
(n) l\fetropolitan Water DistricL__________________________ 550,000
(b) City u\ld/or County of Sun Diego ~------------ 112,000
(a) Imperial Irrigation District } 300000
(b) Palo Verde Irrigation District (16,000 mesa acres) --- ,
Ifor use in Colorado River Basin_______"___________________All remaining
water
availahle
Total Priorities 1- VI_______________________________. G,362,OOO
. Based upon acres to be irrigated. (Note, however, total set for Priority 1, II,
and III.)
t Beneficial consumptive use.
t Now,merged with Metropolitan Water District priority.

Priority
I
II
III

IV
V

VI

VII

Thus, this agreement contemplates the distribution of 5,362,000 acre-
feet of water, with only part of the Los Angeles Area/San Diego sup-
plies included in the 4,400,OOO-acre-foot figure. Priorities I, II, and III
are considered agrieultural uses.
California has fully developed its available supplies from the Colo-
rado River, but both Nevada and Arizona have only used part of
their basic entitlement to date. Probably the key to water availability
in the Lower Basin (and thus a major determination of whether or
not immediate importation of new supplies to the river is needed) is
the rate of development in the Upper Basin and other Lower Basin
states, which with California, share the waters of the Colorado River.
A summary of existiug lower basin development, together with esti-
mates of future annual needs for these existing or authorized develop-
ments for the lower basin (as estimated by the Colorado River Board
and assuming a total of available supply from the Colorado River in
California of 4.4 million acre-feet) is shown on the following table.

8 Report of Special Master op. cit.~ at 28.