Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />in accordance with the decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964). <br /> <br />Taking into account relevant factors associated with existing and expected <br /> <br />future conditions in the Basin, it has been determined that annual pumping and <br /> <br />releases from Lake Mead are sufficient to satisfy 7,500,000 AF of consumptive <br /> <br />use in accordance with Article II(B)(1) of the decree in Arizona v. California. <br /> <br />Therefore, the "normal" condition is the criterion governing the operation of <br /> <br />Lake Mead for calendar year 1992. <br /> <br />Nothing in the decree in Arizona v, California prohibits the Secretary of the <br /> <br />Interior from releasing water apportioned but unused in any Lower Division <br /> <br />State for that year for consumptive use in any other Lower Division State, No <br /> <br />rights to the recurrent use of such water accrue by reason of the use of such <br /> <br />water. In light of this provision, the special studies conducted in conjunction <br /> <br />with the development of this AOP, and in accordance with Article II(B)(6) of <br /> <br />the decree; California will be allowed to utilize water apportioned to, but <br /> <br />unused by, Arizona and Nevada in calendar year 1992 in addition to the <br /> <br />4,400,000 AF apportioned to California in Article n(B)(1) to the extent that the <br /> <br />total annual consumptive use by mainstream users in the Lower Division States <br /> <br />does not exceed 7,500,000 AF. As decreed, California obtains no rights to the <br /> <br />recurrent use of water apportioned to Arizona and Nevada but not used by <br /> <br />those states. <br />