Laserfiche WebLink
<br />further enjoins the states and all parties and water users from <br /> <br /> <br />diverting any water not authorized by the united States for use <br /> <br /> <br />in such states. The ColoradD River Basin project Act of 1968 <br /> <br /> <br />gives California's 4,400,000 acre-feet priority over diversions <br /> <br /> <br />for the Central Arizona Project. <br /> <br /> <br />The Agreement prDvides that the water to be delivered <br /> <br /> <br />"shall be in addition to California's entitlement of Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River water." since all the mainstream water in the Lower Basin <br /> <br /> <br />is apportioned among the three Lower Basin states by the 1964 <br /> <br /> <br />decree in Arizona Vo California, any additional apportiDnment to <br /> <br /> <br />California would require an amendment to the Supreme Court <br /> <br /> <br />decree in Arizona v. California to authorize the additional <br /> <br /> <br />diversions in California. There has been no amendment to the <br /> <br /> <br />decree with respect to basic water rights between the states <br /> <br /> <br />since the decree was promulgated in 1964~ Such an amendment to <br /> <br /> <br />the decree would require the approval of all the parties, the <br /> <br /> <br />United States. five Indian tribes, the California Colorado River <br /> <br /> <br />users, and the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. This <br /> <br /> <br />means that ArizDna and Nevada would have to agree to give <br /> <br /> <br />california some of their apPDrtioned water. An alternative <br /> <br /> <br />would be to attempt to reopen litigation of an issue that the <br /> <br /> <br />Supreme Court spent 12 ,-ars in evaluating before arriving at <br />its decision. <br />An amendment to the California LimitatiDn Act would <br />also be required. Since the California Limitation Act is <br />expressly 'made for the benefit of the United States and the <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />12. <br />