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 318 |
OCR Text |
Show 318 have a substantial interest in tributary inflow, for the greater the quantity of water entering the mainstream, the greater the quantity of water likely to be available for use by them. There is, however, no occasion at this time to apportion water of the tributaries of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin between mainstream and tributary states. An equitable apportionment of the tributaries at the instance of mainstream states could only accomplish either or both of two objects: (1) the enjoining of existing junior tributary uses for the benefit of senior mainstream uses; (2) the enjoining of increased uses on the tributaries for the benefit of existing mainstream uses. There is no basis in the record for closing down existing tributary uses. The mainstream states have neither asked that present tributary uses be limited nor presented evidence that would justify such a limitation. Nor, indeed, have they asked that increased future uses on the tributaries be enjoined. Arizona expressly declares that adjudication of rights in tributary water would be premature and unwarranted.8 California proposes to treat present tributary inflow as part of the dependable supply in the mainstream, but does not seek a determination of rights in this water.9 Similarly, Nevada does not ask that increased uses on the tributaries be enjoined; on the contrary she seeks a decree in favor of tributary users as against the mainstream interests.10 Even if the mainstream states had asked for an injunction against increased tributary uses, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate the request at this time. Mainstream users are presently enjoying the use of tributary inflow, and there is no indication that such enjoyment is in imme- 8Ariz. Proposed Conclusions 20-22. 9See Calif. Proposed Decree, pp. 7-9, 10Nev. Proposed Conclusion 33. |
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 |
330-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 318.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120070 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120070 |