OCR Text |
Show COLORADO RIVER LITIGATION 539 the use of such public land. Compare Utah Power <& Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389,403-05. As we hold that the grant of authority to construct the dam and reservoir is a valid exercise of Congressional power, that the Boulder Canyon Project Act does not purport to abridge the right of Arizona to make, or permit, additional appropriations of water flowing within the State or on its boundaries, and that there is now no threat by Wilbur, or any of the defendant States, to do any act which will inter- fere with the enjoyment of any present or future appropriation, we have no occasion to consider other questions which have been argued. The bill is dismissed without prejudice to an application for relief in case the stored water is used in such a way as to interfere with the enjoyment by Arizona, or those claiming under it, of any rights already perfected or with the right of Arizona to make additional legal appropriations and to enjoy the same. Bill dismissed. Mr. Justice McReynolds is of the opinion that the motions to dis- miss should be overruled and the defendants required to answer. Arizona v. California 292 U.S. 341 (1934) Original application upon the part of the State of Arizona for leave to file a bill to perpetuate testimony for use in future litigation against the State of California and other parties named. Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the Court. On October 13,1930, Arizona sought, by an original bill, a declara- tion that the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Proj- ect Act be decreed to be unconstitutional and void; that the Secretary of the Interior and California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming be permanently enjoined from carrying out said Com- pact or said Act; and that they be enjoined from performing contracts which had been executed by the Secretary on behalf of the United States for the use of stored water and developed power after the proj- ect shall have been completed, and from doing any other thing under color of the Act. The bill was "dismissed without prejudice to an application for relief in case the stored water is used in such a way as to interfere with the enjoyment by Arizona, or those claiming under it, of any rights already perfected or with the right of Arizona to make additional legal appropriations and to enjoy the same." Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423,464. On February 14, 1934, Arizona moved for leave to file in this Court its original bill of complaint to perpetuate testimony in an action or actions arising out of the Boulder Canyon Project Act which "at some time in the future" it will commence, in this Court against California, and others therein named as defendants.1 The bill sets forth: 1 Namely, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming. Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angelea City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. |