OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 555 and that in any case Congress has subordinated that power to Arizona's rights by the provisions of § 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which authorizes Arizona, California and Nevada to enter into an agreement as to their relative rights in the water of the river. But these and similar contentions, so far as they were not answered ad- versely to Arizona in Arizona v. California, supra, 456, cannot be judicially determined in a proceeding to which the United States is not a party and in which it cannot be heard. Every right which Arizona asserts is so subordinate to and depend- ent upon the rights and the exercise of an authority asserted by the United States that no final determination of the one can be made with- out a determination of the extent of the other. Although no decree rendered in its absence can bind or affect the United States, that fact is not an inducement for this Court to decide the rights of the states which are before it by a decree which, because of the absence of the United States, could have no finality. [Citing cases.] A bill of com- plaint will not be entertained which, if filed, could only be dismissed because of the absence of the United States as a party. Louisiana v. McAdoo,ZteV.S.627. The petition to file the proposed bill of complaint is denied. We leave undecided the question whether an equitable division of the un- appropriated water of the river can be decreed in a suit in which the United States and the interested states are parties. Arizona will be free to assert such rights as she may have acquired, whether under the Boulder Canyon Project Act and California's undertaking to restrict her own use of the water or otherwise, and to challenge, in any appro- priate judicial proceeding, any act of the Secretary of the Interior or others, either states or individuals, injurious to it and in excess of their lawful authority. Petition denied. Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 (1963) Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1952 the State of Arizona invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court1 by filing a complaint against the State of California and seven of its public agencies.2 Later, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and the United States were added as parties either voluntarily or on motion.3 The basic controversy in the case is over how much water each State has a legal right to use out of the waters of the Colorado Eiver and its tributaries. After preliminary pleadings, we referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death in 1955 to Simon H. 1 "The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies between two or more States. ... "In all cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." U.S. Const., Art. Ill, § 2. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(l). Three times previously Arizona has instituted actions in this Court concerning the Colorado River. Arizona v. California. 283 U.S. 423 (1931) : Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934) ; Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558 (1936). See also United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 1,74 (1935). 2 Palo Verde Irrigation District. Imperial Irrigation District. Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. 3344 U.S. 919 (1953) (intervention by United States); 347 U.S. 985 (1954) (inter- vention by Nevada) ; 350 U.S. 114 (1955) (joinder of Utah and New Mexico). |