Hmm - Following Hazlnut's post - after reading more about the Hoover Dam and how it's water distribution is allocated it is now clear that 7 states have been allocated water-usage based on the pre-Hoover Dam contract that was written up and agreed on before construction.
California depends on the surplus of other state's allocations to meet it's energy needs.
Years back, however, that came under new scrutiny because of less overall water that's available for use (it's less than calculated decades ago) and the needs of Arizona and Nevada have increased.
California has been directed by the US government to form it's own self-sufficient and state-based energy needs as well as reduce over power-consumption. They've been given a 15 year grace period in which to do so.
So, now that I know more, it seems that no one particular state has more control over the Dam and the energy that's produced. It is a shared control divided between the 7 main states that the River flows through and the US government, centering around several agreements and various measures put in place.
Hence why he had to state it this way:And now - I actually support Arizona's reaction. They have a point.I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.
If LA doesn't want to be on end A then they surely can't be on end B, C or D.
Just like Berkeley California trying to boot the military recruitment offices out of it's town - they had to can it thus they forfeit all their US granted rights.
So - would his persuasion to rewrite their various contracts and agreements actually work? Maybe But I doubt it. I get the feeling that all states would have to agree and so would the US government.