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 155 |
OCR Text |
Show 155 Senator Pittman explained why it was necessary for Congress to provide authority for the allocation of the water among the three states. "Mr. President, this question has been here now for seven years. The seven States have been attempting to reach an agreement. Apparently the Senate of the United States is about to reach an agreement as to what ought to be done. The Senate has already stated exactly what it thinks about the water. That might have been an imposition on some States. Why do we not leave it to California to say how much water she shall take out of the river or leave it to Arizona to say how much water she shall take out of the river? It is because it happens to become a duty of the United States Senate to settle this matter, and that is the reason."22 Senator Hayden of Arizona who, like Senator Pittman, was one of those most interested in the Project Act, emphasized a number of times that the bill provided a basis for the apportionment of water among Arizona, California and Nevada regardless of state law and interstate priorities, but that it would not affect intrastate water rights. Senator Hayden stated: "The only thing required in this bill is contained in the amendment that I have offered, that there shall be apportioned to each State its share of the water. Then, who shall obtain that water in relative order of priority may be determined by the State courts."23 The amendment referred to was the basis for a substitute amendment by Senator Phipps of Colorado which, in turn, was enacted as the first paragraph of Section 4(a) of the Project Act. 2270 Cong. Rec. 471 (1928), Ariz. Legis. Hist. p. 84. 2370 Cong. Rec. 169 (1928), Ariz. Legis. Hist. p. 30. For similar statements by Senator Hayden see 70 Cong. Rec. 163 (1928), Ariz. Legis. Hist. p. 18. |
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 |
167-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 155.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119907 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119907 |