Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />22. <br /> <br /> <br />The ramifications of implementing the Agreement, would <br />result in a radical change in current water pOlicie&. <br />California instead of working together with other states could <br />soon find itself in the middle of a new Colorado River wat~r <br />war. The fight would be with ArizDna and Nevada, WhDse water <br />would be taken if the Agreement were to be implemented as well <br />as with the Upper Basin states that would consider their future <br />threatened by this Agreement. <br />The other six states of the Colorado River Basin, and <br />the media in those states, generally view any action by a <br />California water agency as an action by California. They have <br />been suspicious that California will try a "water grab." The <br />major focus of this proposal, as stated earlier, is on the Lower <br />Basin where either Metropolitan would have to give up water or <br />Arizona and Nevada would have to give up water. Since the <br />intent is to obtain more water for California, this means that <br />Arizona and Nevada would have to give up some of the water <br />destined for the Central Arizona Project and the Southern Nevada <br />Project. It needs to be remembered that in 1968, Arizona agreed <br />to legislation that gave California a priority for its 4,400,000 <br />acre-feet a year over the Central Arizona Project, of which <br />Metropolitan has a priority of 550,000 acre-feet a year, when <br />there are shortages on the Colorado River in exchange for <br />California support for authorization of the Central Arizona <br />project. This arrangement was agreed to by the Authority and <br />Metropolitan, both through their own actions and through the <br />