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 142 |
OCR Text |
Show 142 The limits established by the Compact on the acquisition of appropriative rights are applicable to the mainstream of the Colorado River and to its tributaries. Arizona has contended otherwise, claiming that the Compact relates to the mainstream exclusively. To support this contention, Arizona advances a number of arguments: 1. That the events leading to the adoption of the Compact, already mentioned in this Report, reveal an intention to deal with mainstream problems rather than with problems on the tributaries; 2. That the Upper Basin could physically control and acquire rights, against the Lower Basin, in mainstream and Upper Basin tributary water only, and hence was not interested in Lower Basin tributaries; 3. That the Compact purports to apportion only part and not all of the water in the River System; 4. That the obligation specified in Article III(d) necessarily refers to mainstream water only; 5. That subdivisions (a) and (d) of Article III are correlative and that III(b) refers to additional mainstream water; 6. That Article VIII deals with mainstream water. At best, these arguments suggest two things: (1) that some provisions of the Compact relate to mainstream water exclusively, and (2) that the Compact might have been limited to the mainstream in all of its provisions if the negotiators had chosen to have it so confined. However, the plain words of the Compact permit only one interpretation -that Article III(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) deal with both the mainstream and the tributaries. Article II(a) states: "The term 'Colorado River System' means that portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the United States of America." Article III (a) apportions "from the Colorado River System ... the exclusive bene- |
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 |
154-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 142.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119894 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119894 |