Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />surplus, then california, and more preciselY Metropolitan, would <br /> <br />be entitled to one-half of that surplus. In any year that the <br /> <br />secretary does not consider the 300,000 to 500,000 acre-feet to <br /> <br />be a surplus, then California would receive its basic <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet a year and the <br /> <br />300,000-500,000 acre-feet would remain in storage in Lake Mead, <br /> <br />to be available for future use by Arizona and Nevada to meet <br /> <br />their basic apportionments. The only way that the Authority <br /> <br />would be able to receive this water under the Agreement would be <br /> <br />for Metropolitan to agree to the Authority taking its place in <br /> <br />the priority Agreement and reducing the supply that Metropolitan <br /> <br />would take, or tor Arizona and Nevada to agree to reduce the <br /> <br />amount of water that they would take. <br /> <br />B. l~pacts on OnqDinq Colorado River <br />tc>'er Supply Proqrams <br /> <br />The Agreement is premised on the right of a hclder of a <br /> <br />higher priority selling water to a party without a priority and <br /> <br />thus preventing the holder of a lower priority to use the <br /> <br />water. This is contrary to Metropolitan's interests on future <br /> <br />pr(Crams and is contrary to Metropolitan's position already <br /> <br />taKen with respect to proposed sales of water by Indian tribes <br /> <br />for use off the reservation. We are currently working on <br /> <br /> <br />several programs which, if successful, would lead to more <br /> <br />Colorado River water being available for Metropolitan. In each <br /> <br />case, Metropolitan is heavily dependent upon the previOUSlY <br />discusseq documents included in the "Law of the River" to obtain <br />water and to obtain it without cost. Briefly. these programs <br /> <br />are: <br /> <br />17. <br />