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 138 |
OCR Text |
Show 138 III. The Claims of the States to Water in the Mainstream of the Colorado River I have concluded that the claims of Arizona, California and Nevada to water from Lake Mead and from the mainstream of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam are governed by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057 (1929), the California Limitation Act, Act of March 4, 1929, and the several water delivery contracts which the Secretary of the Interior has made pursuant to the authority vested in him by Section 5 of the Project Act. The Colorado River Compact, the doctrine of equitable apportionment, and the law of appropriation are all irrelevant to the allocation of such water among the three states. A. The Colorado River Compact Extensive argument was had on the origin, purposes and meaning of the Colorado River Compact. Some of the parties labored under the conviction that prolonged and faithful exegesis of the text of this historic instrument would somehow yield a solution to the problems of this litigation. The sentiment which promoted this line of thinking seemed to rise from a profound faith that the Compact, venerated for its great contribution to the growth of the Southwest, would in some unexpected manner come to the aid of the disputing states. Reflection has not confirmed these hopes. The Compact does not answer any of the vital questions which must be answered in the disposition of this suit. The Compact contributes some light on the supply of mainstream water, insofar as it regulates the extent to which the River may be depleted by the Upper Basin. Beyond that the Compact has no utility in the adjudication of this case. |
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 |
150-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 138.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119890 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119890 |