Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />, <br /> <br />other six Colorado River Basin states, the approval of the <br /> <br />United States and the Legislatures of the six states would be <br /> <br />required in addition to an act of the California Legislature. <br /> <br />Finally, an amendment of of the Boulder Canyon Project Act by <br /> <br />the Congress to authDrize the amendment to the Limitation Act <br /> <br />would be required. <br /> <br />2. California priorities <br /> <br />If California's apportionment were increased as <br /> <br />described above, there remains the problem of priorities within <br /> <br />California. The Boulder Canyon Project Act and the decree in <br /> <br />Arizona v. California prohibit the delivery of Colorado River <br /> <br />water in the Lower Basin to any water user without a cDntract <br /> <br />with the United States. In 1931, the seven parties seeking <br /> <br />Colorado River water delivery contracts with the Secretary of <br /> <br />the Interior (Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial <br /> <br />Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, The <br /> <br />MetrDpolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los <br /> <br />Angeles, City of San Diego and County of San Diego) agreed to <br /> <br />establish priorities for California's share of Colorado River <br /> <br />water. This Seven Party Agreement, was accepted by the <br /> <br />Secretary of Interior. and is included in the water contracts of <br /> <br />the parties. It sets forth priorities as follows: <br />(a) priorities 1-3, the so-called agriCUltural <br /> <br />priorities, a maximum of 3,850,000 acre-feet of water per <br /> <br />year for beneficial use in Palo Verde IrrigatiDn District, <br />Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella <br /> <br />valley Water District. <br /> <br />13. <br />