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 157 |
OCR Text |
Show 157 "Mr. Johnson. It has a perfected right there unquestionably, but the bill requires the city of Los Angeles to conform to it, and the city of Los Angeles is perfectly willing to conform to it just exactly as if it had no perfected right. "Mr. Walsh of Montana. Am I correct in the assumption, that the Government of the United States must distribute the water to the various ap-propriators in accordance with their several appropriations? "Mr. Johnson. If they contract. "Mr. Walsh of Montana. Yes; but to contract means a liberty of contract. That is what I want to know. Can the Secretary give the water to them or withhold it from them as he sees fit? "Mr. Johnson. Certainly, because before he begins work upon the dam he has to have the contract in his possession for its payment, and he is the one who is to fix the sums that are to be paid. "Mr. Walsh of Montana. Yes, but that is quite contradictory. It seems to me that the city of Los Angeles has no rights by virtue of this appropriation. "Mr. Johnson. Certainly it has, but those rights unquestionably will be controlled by this bill. "Mr. Walsh of Montana. I directed the inquiry merely for the purpose of trying to find out, if I can, under what kind of obligation the Government of the United States, should it build this dam, would be to those who have the appropriations. "Mr. Johnson. The Government would be under no obligations until it makes its terms. I seem unable to make that plain. But here is everything in this scheme, plan, or design: Everything is dependent upon the Secretary of the Interior contracting with those who desire to obtain the benefit of the construction, and he is not to undertake any expenditure nor to undertake any construction until that shall have been accomplished. |
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 |
169-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 157.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119909 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119909 |