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 viii |
OCR Text |
Show V1U PAGE 1. Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge 298 Findings of Fact.................. 298 Conclusion of Law................. 299 2. Imperial National Wildlife Refuge ... 299 Findings of Fact.................. 299 Conclusion of Law................. 300 D. United States Water Rights Limited by Each State's Apportionment...... 300 E. Boulder City, Nevada............... 303 V. Mainstream Allocation : Conclusion___ 305 VI. Claims to Water in the Tributaries..... 315 A. Controversies Between Mainstream States and Tributary States......... 316 B. Controversies Among the Tributary States Inter Sese................... 321 1. Tributaries Other Than the Gila River 321 2. The Gila River System.............. 324 (a) Present Uses ................ 325 (b) Future Uses ................. 331 (c) United States Claims.......... 332 Findings of Fact.................. 335 Conclusions of Law................ 342 |
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 |
009-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_table-of-contents-page viii.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119672 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119672 |