Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0'-'0 <br />-' <br />} <br /> <br />onSS6 <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />Grounds. As stated by the Court: <br /> <br />" * i' i.' The returns ra,ise nunerous objections to' <br />the sl',fficiency of the pro:1osed bill of CO:;llJl<:"int,' <br />on1:' tHO of ',Jhich ue find it necessary to consi(l,er. <br />One is that the proTlosed oill f2,ils to present Elny <br />justiciable case or" controversy Iii thin the juris- <br />diction of the Court, The other is that the United <br />States, uhich is not namec1, 28 " defendant and has ,not <br />consentecl to be sued, is an inc'.isjJensable part:' to <br />any c1e~ree grnnting the relief prayed by the bill, <br /> <br />"The relief GouQ:ht is: (1) That the quantum of <br />Arizona's equitable share of the lfater flO1,rlnr; in the <br />Colorado River, subject toOiversion and use be <br />fixed by this Court, :me'. th2,t the petitioner \ s title <br />thereto be quieted 8g2inst 2dverse clni!;Js of the <br />e1efend,-nt stCltes, (2) That the State of Ci'.lifornia be <br />oarrec1 fro,'.1 havin3 or clrii.1inc; o.ny riGht to c'.i vert <br />2nc1 llse more th;'\n un equitable share of the uater <br />flO1rin[i in the river, to be deter:',;ined by the Court, <br />and not to'exceed the limitation imposed ~)on California's <br />use of such Hater b:' the Boulder Canyon Project Act, <br />45 StEtt, 1057, and the Act of the California legislature <br />of j,iarch 4, 1929, Ch. 16, Ststs. of C,-,lif., 1929, l). 38. <br />(3) That it be O,ecreed tr.at the diversion anc'!. use by <br />2ny of the defendnntst2tes of a,ny part of the equite.ble <br />share of the 'Jater (ecreed to Arizona pending its <br />diversion and use by her shQll not constitute a prior <br />appro ,riation or confer upon the approprlat.il'lP:' state <br />an~' riGht in the 'rater superior to thc:t of Arizona. <br />(4) T:1l1t any right of the Republic of i-ie;:ico to an <br />equitable share in any increaseel flolT of water in the <br />Colorae10 River EJac1e avnilable b:\' '!or~~s bein[S uonstructed <br />by or for California, shall be SUlJplied from California IS <br />equit('-o::'e share 0::" the \Tater, aml that neither petitioner <br />nor t~e defendant states other than California shall <br />be required to contribute to it fr6m thelr equitable <br />shares as adjuCicated by the Court. <br /> <br />"The lJro:)osee1 bill thus, in subst2nce, see]~s a Judicial <br />apportiomlent amonG tll.e s tateC' in the Coloraclo River <br />Bl:?sin of the una::,~r'J:jr:;,ated T'ater of the river,llith <br />tlle limitatlon that the share of California shall not <br />exceed the amount to '1m ch she is 11mi t ed by the <br />Boulder Canyon Project Act and by her statute, and <br />wi th tll.e proviso that any increase in the floH of <br />water to \T~ich the Repuolic of l,jexl~l!) may be entl tled <br />shall be supplied from the amount apportioned to <br />California, Our consic1eration of the case is re- <br />