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 321 |
OCR Text |
Show 321 imminent, it is unnecessary to determine whether there is water available for such uses. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that it will not exercise its original jurisdiction to apportion water in an interstate stream in order to reserve it for consumption at an unspecified time in the future by one state against the possibility that another state might utilize the water first. See cases cited at page 320, supra. Even assuming that an equitable apportionment of tributary water between mainstream and tributary uses would be appropriate, it is extremely doubtful that the evidence is sufficient to form the basis for decision. Arizona is an important tributary state and yet there is little evidence of the extent or seniority of her uses on tributaries other than the Gila. Moreover, the full effect of the decree in this case upon the Lower Colorado River Basin may not be immediately apparent. Undoubtedly, a more "equitable" apportionment might be achieved if apportionment is postponed at least until all practical consequences of the decree are ascertained. B. Controversies Among the Tributary States Inter Sese 1. Tributaries Other Tluxn the Gila River. Controversies among the tributary states have arisen over four tributary systems which flow into the Colorado River in the Lower Basin, namely, the Little Colorado River System, the Virgin River System, Johnson and Kanab Creeks, and the Gila River System. The latter is dealt with in the next following section of this Report. Controversies over the other three can be disposed of on a single ground and are dealt with together in this section. The Little Colorado River rises in Arizona at the New Mexico border and flows through the State of Arizona, joining the Colorado. River upstream from Grand Canyon. Rio Puerco, the Zuni River, Black Creek and Carrizo Creek, the principal tributaries of the Little |
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 |
333-UUM-COvAZ-SMRP_page 321.jpg |
Setname |
wwdl_azvca |
ID |
1120073 |
Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s61835d5/1120073 |