Title |
State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants : the United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners : State of Utah and State of New Mexico, impleaded defendants : report / Simon H. Rifkind, special master |
Creator |
United States. Supreme Court |
Subject |
Water rights; Water consumption; Rivers |
OCR Text |
Show The record of this action is another chapter in the long history of controversy relating to the Colorado River. Suit was initiated by Arizona on August 13, 1952, by filing a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of California and seven public agencies of the State.1 On January 19, 1953, the motion, unopposed, was granted. |
Publisher |
[Washington, D.C. : U.S. Supreme Court, 1960] |
Contributors |
Rifkind, Simon H. |
Date |
1960-12-05 |
Type |
Text |
Format |
application/pdf |
Digitization Specifications |
Image files generated by Photoshop CS from PDF files |
Language |
eng |
Rights Management |
Digital Image Copyright 2004, University of Utah. All Rights Reserved. |
Holding Institution |
UNLV Libraries, Special Collection, 4505 Maryland Pkwy., Las Vegas, Nevada 89154 |
Source Physical Dimensions |
ix, 433 p. ; 27 cm |
Call Number |
KFA2847.5.C6 A337 1960 |
ARK |
ark:/87278/s61835d5 |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120114 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5 |
Title |
page 99 |
OCR Text |
Show 99 VII. Mainstream Supply During the course of the hearings in this case evidence was introduced of estimates of future supply of mainstream water which will be available for consumptive use in the Lower Basin. Arizona and the United States take the position that it is neither necessary nor useful to attempt to predict the future Lower Basin supply in order to adjudicate this case. California, on the other hand, urges that supply should be estimated and this estimate used as the basis for decision. Nevada has also presented an estimate of future supply. I have concluded that a prediction of the future supply of Lower Basin mainstream water would be irrelevant to the legal issues involved in this case, and, moreover, would not be sufficiently accurate to shed light on any equitable considerations which might bear on the decision. Thus no attempt is made to predict future supply in this Report. A. The Future Supply of Mainstream Water in the Lower Basin is Irrelevant to the Legal Issues in This Case As will be developed in Part Two of this Report, Congress and the Secretary of the Interior have established a formula for the apportionment of mainstream water among the three states of the Lower Basin with geographic access to the Colorado River; namely, Arizona, California and Nevada.18 This formula allocates certain percentages of the available supply in any given year to each of the three states. Since the formula is not derived from supply and since it operates on whatever the supply happens to be in any given year, there is no need to predict future supply in order to determine how that supply is to be "This apportionment does not apply to water diverted upstream from Lake Mead. See pp. 183, 225-228, infra. |
Format |
application/pdf |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |
Resource Identifier |
110-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 99.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119850 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119850 |