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 248 |
OCR Text |
Show 248 State of California" and nothing indicates that this language does not include all uses, including federal uses. The Nevada contract was intended to be correlative with the Arizona and California contracts and hence should be interpreted in the same manner. Furthermore the Nevada contract provides for the delivery of "so much water... as may be necessary to supply the state a total quantity not to exceed [300,000 acre-feet per annum]." Clearly this "total quantity" includes all mainstream water consumed in Nevada by any user. E. California's Offer of Proof. In connection with the oral argument on the Draft Report, California made an Offer of Proof, consisting of about 60 papers, which, she asserts, show thirty years of legislative and administrative interpretation of the Project Act contrary to the conclusions reached in the Report. California contends that these papers, if admitted in evidence, would establish: (1) That state and federal officials concerned with the administration of the Project Act construed Section 4(a) to be applicable to the tributaries as well as to the mainstream, as California contends, see pp. 177-178; (2) That the Secretary of the Interior had no intention of apportioning water when he entered into water delivery contracts with the several California defendants and with Arizona and Nevada. Careful consideration of the Offer of Proof leads to the conclusion that the papers proffered do not establish either of these contentions. First, as to the correct interpretation of Section 4(a), the papers tend to show only that Arizona and California have for over thirty years disagreed over the meaning of |
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 |
260-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 248.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120000 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120000 |