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 174 |
OCR Text |
Show 174 Dam regulate the flow of water in the tributaries, nor can it deliver water on any of these streams. Certainly Congress intended that the water, to a portion of which California was limited by Section 4(a), would be mainstream water only. The very language of the Section-it refers to the Colorado River and not to the System-points in this direction. But more important, the second paragraph of Section 4(a) demonstrates that Congress considered the limitation on California to be part of an overall allocation of the entire quantity of water dealt with in that Section among three states only: of the first 7.5 million acre-feet-4.4 to California, 2.8 to Arizona, and .3 to Nevada; the balance to California and Arizona equally. This intention is clearly stated in the legislative history. Thus Senator Hayden of Arizona made the following comments about an amendment to the Project Act which he offered and which subsequently became the second paragraph of Section 4(a). The Phipps Amendment, which is referred to in the quotation, became the first paragraph of Section 4(a). "Mr. Hayden. Mr. President, an examination of the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Phipps] will disclose that it proposes that the State of California shall agree with the United States, for the benefit of the States of Arizona and Nevada, that the aggregate annual consumptive use of water from the Colorado River by the State of California shall not exceed 4,400,000 acre-feet. Further, that the State of California may have one-half of any excess of [sic] surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact. "The first part of my amendment is a mere corollary to the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. It provides that of the remainder of the seven and one-half million acre-feet there |
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 |
186-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 174.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119926 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119926 |