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 193 |
OCR Text |
Show 193 paragraph (b) of said Article III; and that the use by California of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact shall never exceed annually one-half of such excess or surplus water. . . ,"53 Senators Pittman and Hayden could not have referred to an extra million acre-feet of water to be divided among Arizona and California if they were thinking of Article III(d), which can be said to guarantee only an average of 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year. Since the Senators equated Article III(a) and III(b), they could not have equated III (a) and III(d), because III(d) has no relationship to III(b). Furthermore, this suggested interpretation would create very difficult administrative problems. Even after each state's share of the flow at Lee Ferry and the Lower Basin tributary flow into the mainstream were segregated, it would be necessary to determine the channel and evaporation losses sustained by such water, as it flowed in the mainstream and was stored in Lake Mead, in order to calculate the amount left for each state to divert below Lake Mead. An accurate determination of the total losses on all the water flowing in the mainstream and stored in Lake Mead is extremely difficult if not impossible to make. Yet, even if such a determination were possible, it would not be possible to calculate the losses on each state's share of water simply by allocating total losses among the states in the same proportions as the total water is allocated among them. This is so because the amount of loss depends on such factors as volume and flow of water, and because the allocation of water among the three states varies depending on whether or not particular water is surplus. On the other hand, it is unnecessary to compute losses on water flowing in the mainstream above Lake Mead 8870 Cong. Rec. 162 (1928), Ariz. Legis. Hist. p. 17. |
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 |
205-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 193.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119945 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119945 |