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 202 |
OCR Text |
Show 202 of the second paragraph of Section 4(a) of the Project Act. The provisions she regards as invalid are Article 7(b), (f) and (g), which provide for Arizona's recognition of rights in Nevada, New Mexico and Utah, and Article 7(d), which in effect reduces the quantity of water available for consumption in Arizona below Lake Mead by the amount that diversions in Arizona on tributaries and the mainstream itself above Lake Mead deplete the flow of water into the reservoir.63 I have rejected the contention that the second paragraph of Section 4(a) of the Act established a mandatory formula governing the amount of water Arizona must receive. See pages 162-163, supra. The contention respecting Article 7(d) is dealt with hereafter at pages 237-247. Arizona does not contest the validity of the contracts of other parties except as she seeks to aid Nevada in contending that Nevada's contract is invalid to the extent that it reduces Nevada's diversions of Lake Mead water by the amount of Nevada's tributary uses.64 With respect to the California contracts, Arizona argues only that they must be read according to Arizona's construction of the limitation provision in Section 4(a) of the Project Act. This contention presents the same issues already disposed of by the discussion of the Act in the next preceding section of this Report. California does not contest the validity of her contracts and indeed pays scant attention to them. California's view is that appropriative rights are decisive of the case and the contracts do not amount to appropriative rights but constitute only licenses to appropriate, which licenses must be perfected by beneficial use of the water. Similarly, California contends that the Arizona contract does not establish a water right in Arizona, is not a muniment of title, 63Ariz. Opening Brief, pp. 55-56. "/<*., at 55. |
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 |
214-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 202.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119954 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119954 |