Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u u u u u u <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A key provision in the draft a~reement attached to the option is the <br /> <br />ability of upstream users to recall the ~ater for future use in the upper <br /> <br />basin states of the Colorado River. Upstream users could use the supply as <br /> <br />needed in the future by giving adequate notice to the Authority. Thus, the <br /> <br />project construction would be funded by full utilization of the capacity of <br /> <br />the project by San Diego in the early years when little of the water could be <br /> <br />used beneficially in the upper states. However, future water needs of <br /> <br />Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, primarily for energy development, would not <br /> <br />suffer from early development. The Authority would gain nO permanent rights <br /> <br />to the water. <br /> <br />The option and the agreement could be assigned to the Metropolitan Water <br /> <br />District for the benefit of the entire south coastal area. The new supply <br /> <br />would be greater than MWD's share of the proposed improvements to the state <br /> <br />water project that failed to gain legislative approval in Sacramento earlier _ <br /> <br />this month. With conserved water from Imperial Valley now under negotiation <br /> <br />between MWD and the Imperial Irrigation District, the Yampa River supply would <br /> <br />complete offset losses of Colorado River water to Arizona after 1985. While <br /> <br />water from the Yampa River project is 5 years in the future, early deliveries <br /> <br />of up to 50,000 AF per year from a smaller reservoir now ready for <br /> <br />construction could arrive by 1987. <br />