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 233 |
OCR Text |
Show 233 7.5 million acre-feet. The contractual allocation scheme also determines each state's apportionment in the event of insufficient mainstream water to supply 7.5 million acre-feet of consumptive use in one year. In such event, the allocation scheme requires each state to share the burden of the shortage ratably. This is to say that the contracts, executed by the Secretary in conformity with the apportionment contemplated by Congress in Section 4(a), apportion to each state a pro rata share of the available water. The interstate ratios are determined by the contractual apportionment to each state of the first 7.5 million acre-feet of consumptive uses. Thus in the event of shortage, to Arizona is apportioned by her contract 2.8 Ts of the aggregate consumptive use in the three states; to California is apportioned by her contracts 4.4 of such use; 775" and to Nevada is apportioned by her contract .3 of such U use. Priority of appropriation is nullified by the Project Act and by the contracts, and this ratable apportionment is substituted in lieu thereof.87 It is demonstrable that the Project Act and the water delivery contracts contemplate a pro rata allocation of mainstream water among Arizona, California and Nevada in times of short supply. As explained above, the three states' apportionments are on a parity whenever the annual supply is sufficient to satisfy 7.5 million acre-feet or more of consumptive use in the United States. Thus California and Arizona are each allocated 50% of surplus, under existing contracts, and necessarily without regard to priority of appropriation. Even if, hypothetically, California were to 87As is explained hereafter (pp. 306 et seq., infra) Section 6 of the Act makes an exception to this rule. |
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 |
245-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 233.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1119985 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1119985 |