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 230 |
OCR Text |
Show 230 comparable to the one that California urges for adoption here. Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate this is to assume that the Project Act and the Colorado River Compact do not exist. In an equitable apportionment suit over mainstream water between Arizona and California, the Gila River would not be in issue because its waters have not been appropriated by California and there are no diversion works in California which permit the utilization of this water in that state. The Supreme Court has never yet based an apportionment of one stream on the water available to one party but not to the other, from another stream. Presumably the apportionment would be based on the supply in the main Colorado River, not that river and the Gila, which California cannot use. (2) The Colorado River Compact. As explained at pp. 139-141, supra, the Compact operates inter-basin and not interstate. It does not purport on its face and it cannot be construed to affect rights between Arizona and California. Although the Compact in Article III(a) and (b) apportions system waters to each Basin, it gives no direction regarding which uses are III (a) or III(b) or some other category, as among states of either Basin. The Upper Basin states recognized that the Compact did not control the intra-basin division of water when, in 1948, they apportioned by compact their share of Colorado River Basin water among themselves. How the Lower Basin states should divide their Compact apportionment, their surplus and the water not covered by the Compact was left to those states, as they themselves recognized in their various efforts to reach agreement and as Congress recognized in the second paragraph of Section 4(a). (3) The Boulder Canyon Project Act. Nothing in the Project Act establishes an apportionment of all Lower Basin |
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 |
242-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 230.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119982 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119982 |