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 229 |
OCR Text |
Show 229 Lower Basin system-wide apportionment. There are only four possible sources for this claim: (1) the law of prior appropriation or equitable apportionment, (2) the Colorado River Compact, (3) the Boulder Canyon Project Act, or (4) the water delivery contracts executed by the Secretary of the Interior under Section 5 of the Project Act. None of these sustains California's position. (1) Prior Appropriation and Equitable Apportionment. Since the doctrines of prior appropriation and equitable apportionment were rendered inapplicable to the Colorado River below Lake Mead by the Project Act, see pp. 151-162, supra, California's claim to Colorado River water cannot be grounded on them. But even if those doctrines did apply, they would not support California's claim. The appropriation doctrine holds merely that a junior appropriator can neither demand nor withhold water required for beneficial use by a senior appropriator. Under this rule, the total quantity of uses in any state is immaterial to the rights of appropriators in other states. It is true that junior appropriators on tributaries can be shut down if the water they would consume has been appropriated by senior appropriators on a mainstream. But that rule of the law of appropriation does not justify California's claim that Gila River water uses are to be charged to Arizona so as to reduce Arizona's claims to the mainstream, since it does not appear that California users have any appropriative rights in waters of the Gila River, their points of diversion all being upstream from the confluence of the Gila with the mainstream. This result is not changed by the modification of strict priority of appropriation that has been made by the Supreme Court in equitable apportionment suits. None of the equitable apportionment cases establishes an accounting system |
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 |
241-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 229.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119981 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119981 |