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 151 |
OCR Text |
Show 151 control the interpretation of the statute, and I shall discuss its interpretation in this regard later in the Report. B. The Boulder Canyon Project Act: Sections 1, 5, 6 and 8 The Boulder Canyon Project Act is in my view the source of authority for the allocation and delivery of water to Arizona, California and Nevada from Lake Mead and from the Colorado River below Lake Mead.18 That the Congress intended the statute to be a source of such authority is made manifest in several sections. Section 1 of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior "to construct, operate, and maintain" Hoover Dam for several purposes, including "for storage and for the delivery of the stored waters thereof for reclamation of public lands and other beneficial uses. . . ." More specifically, Section 5 authorizes the Secretary "under such general regulations as he may prescribe to contract for the storage of water in said reservoir and for the delivery thereof at such points on the river ... as may be agreed upon, for irrigation and domestic uses. . . ." To make its intention abundantly clear the Congress declared in Section 5 that: "No person shall have or be entitled to have the use for any purpose of the water stored as aforesaid except by contract as herein stated." The intention to exert authority over the allocation and distribution of water stored in Lake Mead can likewise be derived from Section 8(b) of the Act. That section contemplates that Arizona, California and Nevada, or any two of them, might negotiate a compact for the equitable division of Colorado River water but provides that such a compact shall be subject to water delivery contracts made by the Secretary of the Interior prior to congressional approval of such compact. 18The Project Act does not govern the mainstream of the Colorado River above Lake Mead. See page 183, infra. |
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 |
163-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 151.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119903 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119903 |