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 253 |
OCR Text |
Show 253 the United States to be an indispensable party in such liti-gation9a* and the United States had refused to join as a party. Nor could the Secretary apportion water on a temporary basis, pending such an adjudication, since Section 5 of the Project Act required his contracts to be for permanent service. Accordingly, the Secretary made contracts for delivery of the water, necessarily intending thereby to allocate it. California's Offer of Proof does not contradict this conclusion. It shows only that the contracts were intended not to be the basis for any contention respecting the meaning of the Compact or the Project Act in future litigation. Although the Secretary was forced to interpret the Project Act in order to make the contracts, he did not want his interpretation to influence future judicial construction of the Compact and the Act. The Secretary's contractual allocation scheme was to govern water deliveries to the several states unless and until it was held invalid by this Court, but the fact that he made the allocation was not to be evidence of its validity. If the scheme was valid, it was to prevail forever, unless changed as authorized by Section 8(b) of the Project Act. Thus California's Offer of Proof shows no more than what is made explicit by Article 10 of the Arizona contract ; it fails to show that the Secretary did not intend his contracts to apportion water. Since California's Offer of Proof, assuming the competence of the proffered papers, fails to establish any proposition that would affect the disposition of the issues in this litigation, it would not be provident to reopen the hearings for the purpose of receiving them as well as any evidence which might then be tendered by the other parties in contradiction. "•Arizona v. California, 298 U. S. 558 (1936). |
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 |
265-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 253.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120005 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120005 |