page 21 | Western Waters Digital Library | J. Willard Marriott Digital Library

Western Waters AZ. vs CA.

Contents | 282 of 327

page 21

Download PDF | | Reference URL | Gallery View | Parent Record

Update Item Information

Title	Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties
Creator	Rifkind, Simon H. (Simon Hirsch); California; Palo Verde Irrigation District; United States. Supreme Court; Nevada
Subject	Water rights; Water consumption; Rivers
OCR Text	Show The State of Utah was joined as a party in this case, in its capacity as a State of the Lower Colorado River Basin, by order of the United States Supreme Court, dated December 12, 1955. In its formal pleadings filed following this order, the State of Utah asked for confirmation of its asserted right to the consumptive use of 175,000 acre-feet per annum of the water apportioned to the Lower Basin by Articles III (a) and III (b) of the Colorado River Compact. The State of Utah also asked that it be decreed its equitable share of any waters which might be apportioned under Article III(f) of the Compact. The rights thus asserted by the State of Utah are based: (1) Upon priority of appropriation, which rights are expressly recognized and protected as "presently perfected rights" or as "rights which may now exist" by the terms of the Colorado River Compact; and (2) upon the principle of equitable apportionment. In this connection it should be noted that Utah makes no distinction between water apportioned under Article III (a) and under III (b) of the Compact. The only water physically available to Utah, however, is from the Virgin River, Kanab Creek and Johnson Creek, all of which streams are tributary to the Colorado River above Hoover Dam. Only the Virgin River actually contributes to the Colorado River each year. Flow from the other two streams normally sinks into the ground and is dissipated through evaporation and transpiration shortly after crossing the Utah-Arizona line. Since the filing of formal pleadings in this case, further study and investigation has prompted us to reduce Utah's demands from a consumptive use figure of 175,000 acre-feet of water to 125,000 acre-feet. This quantity would constitute a full water supply for a total of about 39,000 acres, including present and future development plus a di- version from the basin of about 10,000 acre-feet, and compares with a present consumptive use of 58,000 acre-feet of water for approximately 25,300 irrigated acres and other incidental uses. Evidence will be submitted to demonstrate that Utah has a firm legal as well as historical right to the use of the water here claimed. Water from the Virgin River has been diverted for irrigation in Utah ever since the year 1854. At the time of the so-called "Mead Report" in 1902, there was stated to be more than 10,421 irrigated acres in the Utah portion of the Lower Colorado River Basin. Applicable court decrees establish appropriative rights to water from the Virgin River with priorities as early as 1860. In fact, Utah's use of water in the Lower Colorado River Basin is believed to be the oldest of any white men in the Basin, even though Utah's quantitative uses may be relatively small compared to the total uses within the Basin. Nevertheless, such uses as have existed and now exist are vital to the economic well-being of the entire southwest area of Utah. This particular corner of the state is known as "Utah's Dixie." It has climate and soils suitable for producing crops that can be grown nowhere else in the state. Its special products consist chiefly of fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops such as sugar beet seed for use in other areas of Utah and in other states.
Date	1956
Type	Text
Format	application/pdf
Digitization Specifications	Pages were scanned at 400 ppi on Fujitsu fi-5650C sheetfed scanner as 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit RGB uncompressed TIFF images. For ContentDM access the images were resampled to 750 pixels wide and 120 dpi and saved as JPEG (level 8) in PhotoShop CS with Unsharp Mask of 100/.3. Foldout pages larger than 11" x 14" were captured using a BetterLight Super 8K-2 digital camera back on a 4x5 view camera (100mm Schneider APO lens). Oversize images were resampled to 1500 pixels wide. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) by ABBYY FineReader 7.0 with manual review.
Language	eng
Rights Management	Digital Image Copyright 2005, University of Utah. All Rights Reserved.
Holding Institution	Law Library, Brigham Young University Libraries
Source Physical Dimensions	v. fold. chart., table. 29 cm.
Scanning Contractor	Backstage Library Works - 1180 S. 800 E. Orem, UT 84097.
Call Number	KF5575.A55 .A762 Vol. 1 Vol. 2
ARK	ark:/87278/s6rr1x5q
Setname	wwdl_azvca
ID	1120678
Reference URL	https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6rr1x5q

Page Metadata

Title	page 21
OCR Text	Show Date of Priority Class Acreage Duty Amount Period of Use. Point of Diversion. Place of Use. 21 94. SCHMUTZ, GOTTLIEB, New Harmony, Utah. Aug. 9, 1913 3 .0115 c.f.s. (Application No. 5397) (Certificate No. 318) 95, PRINCE, FRANCIS, New Harmony, Utah. June 20, 1913 3 159.04 2.975 c.f.s. (Application No. 5285) (Certificate No. 723) 96. PRINCE, GEORGE F., New Harmony, Utah. 1865 IB 5.0 60 0.08 c.f.s. 97. SCHMUTZ, GOTTLIEB, New Harmony, Utah. 1865 IB 13.9 60 0.23 c.f.s. 98. PRINCE, FRANCIS, New Harmony, Utah. 1900 2 1.0 60 0.02 c.f.s. 99. DRY FIELD DITCH CO., c/o Reese Davis, New Harmony, Utah. 1890 2 160 60 2.67 c.f.s. (A Mutual Association) from April 1 to Dec. 1. Said water to be diverted from Red Butte Spring which is situated at a point S. 9s W, 4610 ft. distant from the N% Cor. of Sec. I, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. where it issues from said spring and conveyed by means of a pipe line for a distance of 60 ft., and there used from April 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive of each year, for stock watering purposes. from April 1 to Dec. 1. Part of said water to be diverted from Pinto Canyon Creek at a point which bears N. S3°15' W. 6640 ft. distant of the SE Cor. of Sec." 9..T. 38 S., R. 13 W. The balance of said water will be diverted from Pace's Creek at a point which bears N.44°45' W. 4468 ft. distant of the above described Cor. The water diverted irom Pinto Canyon Creek will be conveyed by means of ditch for a distance of approximately 2112 ft. and there commingled with water diverted from Pace's Creek. The commingled water will be conveyed by means of a ditch for a distance of 9,474 ft. and there used to irrigate 159.4 acres of land embraced in Ses. 15, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. Salt Lake Base and Meridian. from April 1 to Dec. 1. Said water to be diverted from Pasture Springs into New Harmony Town Spring Ditch at a point 3350 ft. N. and 1500 ft. W. of S*A Cor. of Sec. 16, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. and used to irrigate 5.0 acres of land in said Sec. 16. from April 1 to Dec. 1. Said water to be diverted from Pasture Springs at a point 3350 ft. N. and 1500 ft. W. of S.% Cor. of Sec. 16, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. and used to irrigate 13.9 acres of land in the NEH SWJ4 of said Sec. 16. Said water to 'e diverted from the Frances Prince Spring at its point of issuance which is 350 ft. N. and 925 ft. W. of the $>% Cor. of Sec. 16, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. and used to irrigate 1.0 acre of land in Sec. 21, T. and R. aforesaid. from April 1 to Dec. 1. Part of Said water to be diverted from Main Creek at a point S. 3°23' E. 2808 ft. from the NW Cor of Sec, 21, T. 38 S., R. 13 W. and conveyed in a ditch to Com-anche Creek. Said water will be commingled with the water of Comanche Creek and a total of 2.67 c.f.s. of water will be diverted therefrom at a point 1250 ft. S. and 675 ft. E. of the NW Cor. of Sec. 21, T. 38 S., R .13 W. into the Dry Field Ditch and used to irrigate 160 acres of land in the NH>4 of Sec. 22, T. 38 S., R. 13 w. , ; Said water to be divided among the owners thereof each in the ratio of their respective acerage to the total acerage as follows: (1) William Chinn 45.0 acres; (2) Clarence M. Englestead 20.0 acres; (3) Orson Hammond 10.0 acres; (4) Orrin Kelscy 10.0 acres; (5) Gottlieb Schmutz 25.0 acres; (6) Reese Davis 20.0 acres; (7) Sarah P. Davis 5.0 acres; (8) David R. Condie 25.0 acres Total 160.0 acres.
Format	application/pdf
Source	Original book: Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties
Resource Identifier	280227-UUM-UE-v28t18_page 21.jpg
Setname	wwdl_azvca
ID	1120632
Reference URL	https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6rr1x5q/1120632