OCR Text |
Show -10- [Journal of the House, pp. 236-38, February 8, 1923.] House Concurrent Resolution No. 5, by Mr. Fiock of Maricopa, was read in full as follows: House Concurrent Resolution No. 5 Whereas, the law of prior appropriation and beneficial use has been developed at great cost to our people, as the most just and logical doctrine by which to measure all conflicting interests and demands for the use of water in this State, as well as throughout the remainder of the drainage basin of the Colorado River, and the arid regions of the United States; and Whereas, the courts of the Territory of Arizona from their organization recognized the right to appropriate for beneficial use the public waters of the Territory as among the invaluable and inalienable rights guaranteed to the people under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States; and Whereas, under the statehood the people succeeded to such rights, and the same now exist as the fundamental law of the State, which said rights have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona; and Whereas, the Constitution of the State of Arizona recognizes this doctrine of prior appropriation and beneficial use as the sole and only doctrine governing the use of water within this State, by especially confirming all water rights thereby acquired, and by expressly declaring the abrogation of the common law doctrine of riparian rights, all of which is provided for in Article XVII of said Constitution; and Whereas, it is a matter of historic record that no other doctrine or principle was ever for one moment |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde 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, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |