Laserfiche WebLink
<br />24. <br /> <br /> <br />Law of the River, is required to be released for use in the <br /> <br />Lower Basin in accordance with the priorities of the Lower Basin <br />, <br /> <br />and, among the California agencies, in accordance with the <br /> <br />Seven-Party Agreement. This means that any water to be <br /> <br />delivered under the Agreement from the Upper Basin to the <br /> <br />Au<~ority could properly be claimed by Nevada, Arizona, or' <br />Metropolitan. <br /> <br />Moreover, Metropolitan has long relied on the validity <br /> <br />of the system of priorities to its advantage. Thus, we have <br /> <br />long used water that is within the basic apportionments of the <br /> <br />other six states. We plan to continue to rely on this system in <br />connection with pending programs to obtain the additional <br /> <br />Colorado River water. The advantageous position that we now <br /> <br />have would be undermined were we to accept the notion that an <br /> <br />entity with a higher water use priority, whether they be in the <br /> <br />Lower Basin or the Upper Basin, has a right to sell water within <br /> <br />their entitlement amount rather than allow it to flow to lower <br /> <br />priority users. <br /> <br />The Galloway proposal would involve major changes in <br /> <br />the complex documents controlling the storage and delivery of <br /> <br />water that have been developed over the past 62 years through <br /> <br />years of negotiation. litigation and political battles. States <br /> <br />that would lose water under the proposal would certainly <br /> <br />challenge it. This would involve massive, lengthy. and in our <br />opinion. ultimately unfruitful litigation. It would also negate <br />years of efforts to build a relationship of trust and <br />