Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~, <br /> <br />OD1882 <br /> <br />-11- <br /> <br />In D1Y judgment, the Court properly dismissed the case; and <br /> <br /> <br />the reason it dismissed the case HOllle ~till prevail in any such <br /> <br />case as Ce.lifornia no'! e'esires to bring. I quote fror,1 the ele- <br /> <br />cision, next to the last paragraph ap~earing on page 463 of <br /> <br />283 U. S. : <br /> <br />\I \'Jhen the bill ,.as fileel, the construction of the <br />dam &ml reb",rvoir hat:' not been cOffi:lenced. Years must <br />elapse before the project is completed. If by opera- <br />tions at the dSQ any then perfected right of Arizona, <br />or of those claiming unSler it, should hereafter be <br />interferred '.rith, ap_ropriate remecl1es 'Iill be avail- <br />able. Compare Kansas Y. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 117. <br />The bill elleges, that ,Jlans have been <lralm and per- <br />mi ts gr.2.nt ed for the ta:~ine: of e.dcli tional vat er in <br />Arizona pursuant to its la\;s. But llilbur threatens <br />no ph"rsical interference "ith these projects:; "nd <br />the Act interposes no legal inhibitions on their exe- <br />cution. There is no occasion for deterr.lil1inc~ I;OF Arizona I s <br />rights to interstate or local ll11ters 1,;11ich he.ve not <br />yet been, and '.hich ,:my never be, alJpropris.ted. <br />lIeF Jersey 2. sar:;:ent. , 269 U. 3. 328, 338. <br />This Court cannot issue declaratory ('ecrees. Co,"pare <br />Texas v Intp.rstate CO;'.~:-'erce Co l:'.~ission, 258 U. S. 158, <br />162; Libertv \Jarehomo,e C.Q... v. Gr7'nnis, 273 U. 3. 70, <br />74; ~!illin:': 2. ChicC\f<o Au<~i torium ARSn., 277 U. S. 274, <br />289-90. ~'izona has, of course, no constitutional right <br />to use, in "id of ap.'.ro;.'riation, any li:lnSl of the <br />Unitecl States, and it cannot complain of the provision <br />condi tioninc; the use of such public lEmd. Com1)are <br />Utah Pover ~ Li~ht QQ. v. United StnteR, 243 U~ S. 389, <br />403_05." <br /> <br />Follm'ing the failure in 1929 and 1930 to reach any agree- <br /> <br />ment \ltth California, [>.ne". follo','in[; the decision of the Supreme <br /> <br />Court of the United States in 283 U. S., Arizona appropriated <br /> <br />and spent considerable SL~S of money in mfficing engineering invest: <br /> <br /> <br />gations anG studies and reports, the peo~le of Arizona having <br /> <br />reaChed the conclusion prior to that time that it \'las essential <br />to fivert water from the mai~ stream of the Colorado River into <br />central i:lnd southern Arizona. <br />