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 |
table-of-contents-page vii |
OCR Text |
Show vii PAGE 2. Cocopah Indian Reservation......... 267 Findings of Fact................... 267 Conclusion of Law................. 268 3. Yuma Indian Reservation........... 268 Findings of Fact................... 268 Conclusion of Law................. 269 4. Colorado River Indian Reservation ... 269 Findings of Fact................... 269 Conclusions of Law................ 273 Boundary Dispute-Opinion......... 274 5. Fort Mohave Indian Reservation..... 279 Findings of Fact .................. 279 Conclusions of Law................ 282 Boundary Dispute-Opinion ........ 283 6. Coachella Indian Reservations........ 288 Findings of Fact.................. 288 Conclusion of Law................. 288 Opinion .......................... 289 B. National Forests, Recreation Areas, Parks, Memorials, Monuments and Lands Administered By the Bureau of Land Management.................. 291 Findings of Fact.................. 294 Conclusion of Law................. 295 C. United States Obligations Under the Mexican Water Treaty and Treaties for the Protection of Wildlife....... 295 |
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 |
008-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_table-of-contents-page vii.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119671 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119671 |