OCR Text |
Show B. LEGAL Arizona v. California, et. al. On January 16, 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court by Order and Notice (364 U.S. 940) set dates for briefs in this case as follows: (a) Exceptions to the Special Master's Report February 27, 1961 (b) Briefs in Support of Exceptions, May 22, 1961 (c) Answering Briefs, August 14, 1961 (d) Reply Briefs, October 2, 1961. For an outline of the Special Master's Report see page 29 of the Twelfth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission. Arizona moved for the adoption of the Special Master's Report with only minor modifications. Arizona's exceptions were aimed more at the premises of the Special Master than at the conclusions reached by him in his report. Arizona's first series of exceptions were directed towards the Master's premises with respect to the construction of the Colorado River Compact. The Special Master found that the Colorado River Compact was not decisive of the issues in the case. The Master did construe some of the provisions of this Compact for the reason that the Supreme Court might differ with the Master's position with respect to the importance of the Colorado River Compact on the issues in this case. With the possibility that the Supreme Court might find the Colorado River Compact important in deciding the issues, Arizona took exception to the Master's conclusions with respect to the Colorado River Compact as follows: 1. To the Master's conclusion that Article III (a) and (b) of the Colorado River Compact achieved an apportionment between the two basins of the Colorado River System by imposing a limitation on the quantity of water that each basin might appropriate as against the other. Arizona's position is that Article III (a) and (b) makes an apportionment of water in perpetuity to each basin, regardless of actual use or appropriations in either basin of the "water so apportioned." 2. To the Master's conclusion that Article III (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) and the first sentence and last paragraph of Article VIII deal with the Colorado River system and not the main stream alone. Arizona's position is that the Articles above refer only to the main stream and not the tributaries. There is a relation between Articles III (a) and III (d); and III (d) is for 26 |