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 261 |
OCR Text |
Show 261 on these Reservations and develop their society and economy only if water from the Colorado River was available to meet their future needs, I have found that the United States, when it reserved water, reserved it for all of such needs. This conclusion comports with the holdings in the three cases decided by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which are cited above. As that Court stated in United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District, 236 F.2d 321, 327 (9th Cir. 1956) : "It is plain from our decision in the Conrad Investing Co. case, supra, that the paramount right of the Indians to the waters of Ahtanum Creek was not limited to the use of the Indians at any given date but this right extended to the ultimate needs of the Indians as those needs and requirements should grow to keep pace with the development of Indian agriculture upon the reservation." The conclusion reached here is also consistent with the holding in the Winters case that the upstream farmers could not interfere with uses on the Indian Reservation which were initiated subsequent to the farmers' diversions. The suggestion is unacceptable that the United States intended that the Indians would be required to obtain water for their future needs by acquiring appro-priative rights under state law. The Indians were not an agricultural people and it was necessary for them to develop their agricultural skills after settling on the Reservations. It must have been apparent that if they were thrown into competition with the more advanced non-Indians in a race to acquire rights to water by putting it to beneficial use, they would have lost the match before it was begun. Rather than assuming that the United States intended to put the Indians in the position of having to leave their Reservations as their water needs increased if they were unable to satisfy these needs by acquiring appro- |
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 |
273-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 261.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120013 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120013 |