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

page 136

136 II. Arizona's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings One question of pleading has survived the hearing. On August 13, 1958, shortly before conclusion of the hearing, Arizona moved before the Special Master for leave to file: (1) an amended bill of complaint; (2) an amended reply to the answers of the California defendants; (3) an amended answer to Nevada's petition of intervention; (4) an amended response to the appearance and statement of New Mexico; and (5) an amended response to Utah's complaint and answer in intervention. In short, Arizona desired leave to file substitute pleadings with respect to all parties except the United States. This motion was opposed by California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.7 The Solicitor General's view that the Special Master "probably does not have jurisdiction to finally rule on a motion to amend the original petition" was reported on his behalf by government counsel.8 Arizona expressly disavowed any desire to offer any additional proof in support of its amended pleadings. It is unnecessary to pass on the question of power raised by the view attributed to the Solicitor General. Since Arizona would not be prejudiced by rejection of the proposed amendments, it is unnecessary to receive them. Close inspection reveals that the proposed changes are intended to accomplish two purposes: (1) to conform the pleadings to the proof; and (2) to state legal theories different from those espoused in the original pleadings. The first objective is superfluous. In a litigation of this character it would be strange to hold the parties strictly to their pleadings. See Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125 (1902), wherein the Court said: 7Tr. 22557-22582. 8Tr. 22582-22583.