OCR Text |
Show CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS Exhibit No. 1342 Identification: Aug. 5, 1957 Admitted: Aug. 6, 1957 Extract From Brief of Complainant in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Bill of Complaint, Arizona v. California, et al., 283 U. S. 423 (1931). (pp. 16-17, 38) In order that there might be no confusion as to the meaning of the term "to appropriate water," as used in the bill of complaint, it was defined therein as follows: (Bill, 8) "To 'appropriate' water means to take and divert a specified quantity thereof and put it to beneficial use in accordance with the laws of the State where such water is found, and, by so doing, to acquire, under said laws, a vested right to take and divert from the same source, and to use and consume, the same quantity of water annually forever, subject only to the rights of prior appropriators." Used in this sense, the bill alleges (Bill, 7-8) that prior to June 25, 1929, there had been appropriated in Arizona 3,500,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries below Lee Ferry, of which 2,900,000 acre-feet had been appropriated from the Gila River. From what has been said it is apparent that those provisions of Section 4 (a) of the Act under which California is required to limit its aggregate annual consumptive |
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. |