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 297 |
OCR Text |
Show 297 refuges are detailed in the Findings of Fact which conclude this section of the Report. Although the United States undoubtedly has the power to take property, including water rights, in order to fulfill its treaty obligations, there is no indication that it has chosen to do so in order to operate the two wildlife refuges currently diverting water from the Colorado River. The Executive Orders creating these refuges simply reserve public lands owned by the United States for use as a wildlife refuge. Nothing in these orders purports to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to utilize water from the Colorado River previously appropriated by others. Rather, the intention of the United States, as expressed in the Executive Orders, was to reserve enough of the unappropriated water available in the River to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the Refuges. I have previously concluded that the United States had the power to reserve unappropriated water in the Colorado River for the future requirements of Indian Reservations and a National Recreation Area and I can perceive no material distinction between them and wildlife refuges. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge could not successfully be operated without diverting water from the Colorado River. Thus I find that the United States intended to reserve water from the mainstream for the reasonable future needs of these Refuges. The United States suggests that it will need to divert no more than 41,839 acre-feet of water per annum and consumptively use no more than 37,339 acre-feet per annum for the Havasu Refuge. The United States also suggests it will need to divert no more than 28,000 acre-feet per annum and consumptively use no more than 23,000 acre-feet per annum for the Imperial Refuge. I find that diver- |
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 |
309-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 297.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120049 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120049 |