Laserfiche WebLink
<br />< <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />001795 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Limitation Act, whose origin I shall shortly describe, Of the <br />5,400,000 acre-feet required by the California projects, only <br />4,600,000 acre-feet can be supplied by the maximum safe annual <br />yield of the main stream: 5,850,000 acre-feet, according to <br />California's proposed findings.1I The balance of the California <br />rights--about 800,000 acre-feet per annum, can be satisfied only <br />from what we have labeled "provisional supply"--either unused <br />upper basin water, or water the rights or title to which cannot <br />appropriately be qUieted in the absence of the upper basin states <br />as parties to the 1itigation.g; <br />The newest California project is the Colorado River <br />Aqueduct. The aqueduct began service in 1941 and carries water <br />to Los Angeles, San Diego, and a populated region of more than <br />6,000,000 people who live on the southern California coastal <br />plain in the region of those two cities. It was initiated by <br />the city of Los Angeles in 1924, Its completion and operation <br />were later taken over by The Metropolitan Water District of <br />Southern California. The oldest main stream project is Palo <br />Verde Irrigation District, on the Colorado River around Blythe, <br />whose first appropriation from the river was made in 1877. The <br /> <br />11 Calif. proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, <br />filed April 1, 1959, Part V. <br /> <br />g; This assumes that the California Limitation Act is ef- <br />fective. If the Limitation Act has become ineffective by reason <br />of Arizona's ratification of the Colorado River Compact, Cali- <br />fornia's rights are entitled to a higher priority, California, <br />however, denies that Arizona's purported ratification of the <br />Colorado River Compact in 1944 is effective. <br /> <br />7. <br />