Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />001799 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />supply is 6,270,000 acre-feet per annum. Nevada includes in that <br />6,270,000 acre-feet 750,000 acre-feet which Nevada demands from <br />the states'of the upper division each year to supply water for <br />Mexico. <br /> <br />No party other than Nevada and California has proposed <br />a determination of main stream water supply. Even if Nevada's <br />figure is right, the water supply is short by 1,230,000 acre-feet <br />of equalling the 7,500,000 acre-feet from the main stream which <br />Arizona and the United states insist is available. If California <br /> <br />is right about the water supply, the shortage which Arizona and <br />the United states would prorate among the existing and future <br />main stream projects is about 2,000,000 acre-feet per annum. <br />In either case, new projects built to share an already <br />inadequate water supply on terms of equal priority would be a <br />guarantee of disaster for existing projects in Arizona and Nevada, <br />as well as in California. <br /> <br />In summary, the central issue, in terms of result, can <br /> <br />be simply stated: Will existing projects in California, Arizona, <br />and Nevada be curtailed to accommodate new projects to be con- <br />structed in Arizona and NeVada?!! Are water rights of all three <br />lower basin states which use main stream water subject to still <br />further dilution when another Secretary of the Interior decides <br />to write yet another water delivery contract of equal priority? <br /> <br />!! The Arizona Bureau of Reclamation projects around Yuma <br />have filed an amicus brief asking an allocation separate from an <br />en bloc allocation to the State of Arizona. A number of projects <br />in the Central Arizona Project service area have objected by <br />separate amicus brief. <br /> <br />ll. <br />