| OCR Text |
Show 128 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS After pleadings were exchanged among the parties, the Court, on June 1, 1954, appointed George I. Haight, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, as Special Master. The Order directed him to find the facts specially and state separately his conclusions of law thereon and to submit them to the Court together with a draft of a recommended decree. B. 1 Upper Basin Joinder California moved to have Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming joined as necessary parties. The motion was denied as to Colorado and Wyoming and granted to join Utah and New Mexico only to the extent of their capacity as Lower Basin States (350 U.S. 114 (1955)). On August 13, 1958, Arizona offered amended pleadings, which were intended to conform the pleadings to the proof and to state legal theories different from those espoused in the original pleadings. The Special Master decided it was unnecessary to receive the amended pleadings since Arizona would not be prejudiced by their rejection (Special Master's Report, page 136). Statements of Position were requested by the Special Master in order to clarify the respective contentions. B.2 Special Master Appointed On October 10, 1955, Judge Simon H. Rifkind was appointed Special Master vice George I. Haight, deceased. On June 14, 1956, the trial was begun in the United States Courthouse at San Francisco, California. In the course thereof, 106 witnesses were heard. The transcript of their testimony occupies about 22,500 pages. Thousands of exhibits were received in evidence. In addition, during a recess, depositions were taken at Silver City, New Mexico and at Reserve, New Mexico, at which 234 witnesses were heard. The deposition transcripts consist of 3,742 pages. The trial was concluded on August 28, 1958. On July 1, 1959, the matter was finally submitted for consideration. On May 5, 1960, a draft report was circulated among the parties by the Special Master. Comments were submitted by all the parties except Utah and oral argument was held on the Draft Report and recommended decree. C. Special Master's Report - December 5, 1960 C. 1 Issues According to the Special Master's Report to the Supreme Court dated December 5, 1960, the action presented a number of different but related controversies among the parties. First, there is the mainstream controversy, involving the three Lower Basin States. Arizona claimed the right to use 2.8 maf in the Colorado River plus one-half of "surplus" based on a mandatory division of the water made by Congress in Section 4(a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. Since existing projects in Arizona consume less than half of this amount Arizona expected to use most of the then uncommitted water which she claims for a new project called the Central Arizona Project. California, on the other hand, claimed that existing mainstream projects exceed the safe annual yield of water in the Colorado River and there is no supply available for new projects in Arizona. California argued for an allocation to Arizona of approximately 3 million acre-feet of water from all sources in the Lower Basin, both mainstream and tributaries. Under California's method of system wide accounting, Arizona's share of the total Lower Basin apportionment would be in large part exhausted by her uses on the Gila River System, and California would be free to use most of the water available in the mainstream. C.I.I Application of Project Act As summarized by the Master the most crucial issue is posed by this question: Is the application of the Project Act limited to the mainstream of the Colorado River or does it apply to the entire river system in the Lower Basin, that is to both mainstream and tributaries? Other important questions are at issue between |
