WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0033 J2 500000 acre-feet of water.aa The Project could feasibly be ~xpanded at that time and was enlarged to accom- modate the District's increased need.aa Further en- largement would not be presently feasible," and a sec- ond aqueduct for delivery of additional water would be a more costly alternative. aa Following the 196,4 Decr~e the District annexed new areas and, thus, obhgated It- self to larger commitments for the ~elivery of.water.a. When the District is ready to use Ita full entitlement of State Project water, unless an alternative source is secured there will be Ii shortfall by any new losses the District' suffers, whether the District's call o? ~e State Project reaches its maximum in 1990 as orlgmally ex- pected or 20 to 30 years later 88 now expl!cted.a, This showing of the District's reliance is clouded by an additional consideration. As the United Sta~s notes "the record does not indicate the decrease m [the District's] supply if the additional claims" are up- held." The District's reply to this challenge does n~t fully expiain why the District will receive less water if the Tribes receive additianal water rights." Neverthe- 32. Tr. 2925-26. In .ddition the Dialrict knew thet Loe Angel.. waa also increasing ita water aupply by 160,000 acre-feet from the .OweDB Val- ley and that increase would a1so belp off..t the 1011 which totalled 662,000 acre-feet. Tr. 2928-29. 33. Tr. 2926-31. 34.Id. 35. Tr. 2932. 36. Tr. 2929. 37. Tr. 2923-24. 38. United Stetea' Opening Poat-Trial Brief 31 (May 19S1). 39. Stete Parties' Poat-TriaI CI08in& Brief 67-68 (June 1981). The Diatrict'a literature indicatea thet ita 550,000 ~cre-feet .~ share will yield only 450,000 acre-feet after allowing for hi.gher pnoflty uaes and aystem losses. U.S. Em. 94, at 3. Thia estimate IS qU"!ified by ~e cautionary atetement tha~ poaaibly only 400,~ ~cre-feet ~ be a~alla- ble. Although the Tribe'a decreed righta and petItIon for addltionall'l8hta less some measure of impact can be expected because of the nature of the District's entitlement to the water. Under the Seven Party Agreement,'. the District has the fourth and fifth priorities for over 1,000,000 acre- feet of water per year from California's share of water in the river. In years of normal wa~r supply, the Dis- trict would not receive the entire contractual amount when Arizona uses ita entitlement. The District's enti- tlement would be further ousted to some extent by ad- ditional senior water rights because its water rights are currently the most junior in a normal yeai'. Some additional loose ends are more troubling and leave serious questions re~arding whether the District would have taken different action if the preaent Indian claims had been successfully presented in the earlier proceedings. The District apparently sought only to re- place losses in 1964 that went to Arizona. U The losses that went to the Tribes apparently were not consid- 'ered as losses that required replacement. This attitude toward the Indian rights has continued, because no plans have apparently been made regarding the possi_ bility of increased awards in the event the Reservation boundary questions are resolved against the State Par- ties.'. From this evidence one could find that the Dis- trict simply ignores the Indian water rights in its plan- ning proceBB and thus does Dot rely on an award at a specific level. Nevertheless, I believe that the District were both mentioned the literature did not specifically atete the impact of either. The Diatrict'a witneos at one point seemed to indieate that the deerease to 400,000 acre-feet would include additional 1_ to tha DiI- trict relulting from additional gainl by the Triba, but the apecific mac- nitude of .uch 101l8OI W8I not indicated. Tr. at 2955. 40. Pro Ariz. Ed!. 27. 41. Tr. 2925-28. 42. Tr. 2943-44. 42 43