Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ '.~ <br /> <br />,'. <br />~' -, <br />~ - <br /> <br />actions of their representatives on the Colorado River Board of <br /> <br />f,-_~ <br />f'- <br />t: <br />> <br />!'J <br />)-., <br />~) <br />to <br />t:i <br />r <br />i <br /> <br />California. Since that time, Metropolitan's representatives <br /> <br />have appeared annually before congressiDnal cDmmittees, <br /> <br />recommending that Congress appropriate funds for the Central <br /> <br />23. <br /> <br /> <br />Arizona Project. <br /> <br />The water supply available to the Central Arizona <br /> <br />Project is projected to diminish from 1,600,000 acre feet/year <br /> <br />tD less than 500,000 acre-feet per year sometime in the next <br /> <br />century. This lower amount is equivalent to the quantities <br /> <br />listed in the Agreement. Any at, ~mpt by California to <br /> <br />circumvent the Law of River and reduce water for Arizona would <br /> <br />be considered to be a violation of our agreement with Arizona. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />Any effort to obtain an adequate water supply for <br /> <br />Southern California must be closely scrutinized because of the <br /> <br />impact that anyone proposal may have on other Metropolitan <br /> <br />pOlicies and programs. <br /> <br />The Colorado River is almost entirely regulated and its <br /> <br />yield is insufficient to meet existing contractual rights. <br /> <br />Because of this oversubscription the system of priorities of <br /> <br />use. there is no possibility of "new" water and the attempt of a <br /> <br />holder of a priority to circumvent the priority system and <br /> <br />"sell" water to an "outsider" would inherently violate the <br /> <br />rights of those holding lower priorities. <br /> <br />This is the situation ~ith the Galloway proposal under <br /> <br />review. Any water apportioned to the Upper Basin that is not <br /> <br />used or stored for use there, in a manner consistent with the <br />