Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. Surplus Colorado River ,:."ter <br /> <br />t.~9 <br />,i~}J: <br />:f~ <br />',::-~'; <br />;,~~~ <br />i ~-~?~. <br />1:;:',-_,\. <br /> <br />19. <br /> <br /> <br />The Law of the River provides that Metropol~tan will <br /> <br /> <br />receive half, and probably more, of the available water any time <br /> <br />that the Secretary decrees that there is a surplus. Currently, <br /> <br />there are no rules as to how a surplus is to be determined. <br /> <br />However we intend to seek regulations that would be favorable <br /> <br />for Metropolitan obtaining such surplus water, again, without <br /> <br />any cost and consiste...~ with the Law of the River. The water <br /> <br />which Galloway seeks to sell is unused Upper Basin water and <br /> <br />would be part of the surplus water. <br /> <br />4. Unused Arizona and Nevada Water <br /> <br />The Supreme Court's decree in Arizona v. California <br /> <br />states that the Secretary may let one state use the unused water <br /> <br />of another state. Such water will be available for a number of <br /> <br />years, and if the Secretary choDses to let Metropolitan have <br /> <br />such water, it would be without any cost. <br /> <br />5. Chanqe in Hoover Flood Control Criteria <br /> <br />We have a plan that would involve a change of the <br /> <br />United States Corps of Engineers' flood control regulations for <br /> <br />Hoover Dam. This change would mean more water available for <br /> <br />Metropolitan, under certain situations, with negligible impact <br /> <br />on others. Obtaining a change in flood control regulations is <br /> <br />difficult under the best of circumstances; it will not be likely <br /> <br />without support of the other states. Such support will not be <br /> <br />forthcoming if we are in a battle to obtain their water. <br />