WSPC03421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O[)2J55 58 ASSEMBLY INTERIM COMMITTEE ON WATER shown in the chart, are the years immediately leading up to and during the first years of delivery of water from the State Water Project. It should be noted that the estimates in Table XV include the development of a maximum of 90,000 acre-feet from waste water reclamation. Thus, it can be seen that if the state's entitlement to the Colorado is not permitted to drop below 4.4 million acre-feet southern California needs can be met through 1990 from supplies within the state. The general manager and chief engineer of the Metropolitan. Water District has descrihed the water supply situation in southern California. . . . there is availahle from local water resources what thc hydrologists call a "safe annual yield" of sufficient water for no more than 5 million people. That's the dependable long-term supply of water provided by nature in the form of surface streams and ground water replenished from rainfall and run-off within the region. To this, we add the supply available to the City of Los Angeles from its Owens River Aqueduct. And on top of that, the major contribution by the Colorado River Aqueduct-one almost equal to the local dependable natural supply. The supply from the Colorado, despite the many news stories ahout our loss of water from that source, will continue to be suffi- cient to carry us through, we believe until the water from north- ern California starts to flow through the Tehachapis in the early 1970 's . . . Another significant factor is that about half of the Colorado River water is now going for replenishment of over- drawn underground supplies and for agriculture. The Metropoli- tan Water District was organized-and the law under wbich it operates defines this as its purpose-to supply water for domestic and municipal uses. Therefore, if these needs so require and if the current drought continues, some cutback in the replenishment program and perhaps even in agricultural uses might prove neces- sary before the state water reaches here. . . . a few conspicuous points should be emphasized. As a matter of reassurance, the uncertainties and wide disparity of views in regard to regional plans pose no threat to our immediate or near-future well-being. The State vVater Project already au- thorized and finaneed under the Burns-Porter Act and other leg- islation, and now well along in construction, will sustain the Met- ropolitan Water District and the remainder of southern California until about year 1990. This is so even with the worst conceivable impairment of Metropolitan's supply from the Colorado River during the intervening period. As adjusted under a . . . contract amendment, Metropolitan's maximum annual entitlement to state project water will increase to 2 million acre-feet, 65 percent more than Metropolitan's present contractual allotment of Colorado River water. Altogether, the apportionment to southern California south of the Tehachapi Mountains will aggregate 2.5 million acre- feet among 14 contracting agencies. .We must assume that Metro- politan's supply of Colorado River water will be cut to 550,000 acre-feet by year 1990 or 45 percent of its present contract allot- ment. Nevertheless, the local water resources together with the City of Los Angeles supply from the High Sierras, Metropolitan's