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 167 |
OCR Text |
Show 167 of the Compact was never stricken or amended. The Congress and six of the states "waived" compliance with Article XL Certainly Congress contemplated the future adherence of Arizona. Section 13(a) of the Project Act provides: "[T]his approval shall become effective when the State of California and at least five of the other States mentioned, shall have approved or may hereafter approve said compact as aforesaid and shall consent to such waiver, as herein provided." (emphasis added) Nothing has been called to my attention to indicate that California or any of the other signatory states expressed itself differently. Under ordinary contract law it may be that fifteen years is too long a time within which an invitation to agree may be said to remain open. But that is always a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances reflecting the understanding of the parties. 1 Williston on Contracts § 54 (3rd ed. 1957); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 36 (1950). Considering what has already been said, coupled with the perpetual character of the Compact and the very long-range interests which it embraced, I do not think Arizona out-waited her invitation. Interpretation of the limitation on California. We turn now to the construction of the language of Section 4(a) of the Project Act and the substantially identical phraseology which appears in California's Limitation Act. Although the problems inherent in those words do not leap to the eye, nevertheless so troublesome are they, that each of the parties which has dealt with them has construed them quite differently, and none of the parties advocates a literal reading of all the statutory language. What is meant by the words "waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of Article III of the Colorado River compact"? |
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 |
179-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 167.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119919 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119919 |