Laserfiche WebLink
<br />IJ018~:' <br /> <br />"- <br /> <br />The Colorado River Case <br /> <br />For neatly H~ :t'e-ar;..:, Arizona has been engaged in a struggle <br />wit.h California for a fair and legal share of Colorado River <br />water. That struggle is now, as of the writing of this report.. <br />:-i.pproaching its end, <br />The final episode~A rizona's suit against Californi!l in the <br />U.S. Sllpreme COllrt-had its genesis in nil attempt hy Arizona <br />to obtain congre~;.;ional approval of 1he Central Arizona Project. <br />This took place in the early 1950's. Twice the U.S. Senate ap- <br />proved the project but twice it died in the Hou:,e Interior amI <br />Insular Affait.s Committee. The eommittee -;aid to Arizona in <br />effect: First establisll your leg:'!.1 right to Colorado River water, <br />then come hack for the Central Arizona Project. <br />And SQ. on August 13. 1952. Arizona filed an original action <br />against California in the Supreme Court. Technically it was a <br />motion for leave to file a bill of complaint agajn~t California <br />and seven water-consuming 'DubHc agencieg of that ~tate. The <br />motion was granted on January 1f1, ]953. <br />E~sentially this waS a suit tn quiet title to a certain quantity <br />of Colorado River water for beneficia! consumptive use by <br />Arizona and tn enjoin California from taking more than its <br />proper share. <br />Two additional parties, the federal government and the <br />state of Nevarla, asked and obtained leave to intervene. Plead- <br />ings were exchanged among the fom' parties. and the Court <br />then appointed George I. Haight. H prominent Chka~o attorney. <br />as Special 'Ma~ter to he:lr the casf' .and submit a reef)Jnmended <br />decree. This i~ common practice III ca~e!:'l of great bulk amI <br />complexity. - <br />Shorth-" afterward. California mo\'ed to have Colorado. New <br />Mexico, Ut.~h and Wyoming joined as partie:-:i to the la\\'suit. The <br />R\)€.da\ Ma'5ter r8c.ommended, and the Court so held, that <br />Col(lrado and \Vyorning should not be joined but Utah :md New <br />lVlexico Hhould be joined, although only to the extent of their <br />capacity as Lower Basin .<.:tates. <br />In September. 1955, Special Master Haight died. Ten days <br />later the COllrt appointed Simon H. Rifkind to slIl'ceed him. <br />(Judge Rifkind is a widely-known attorney and jurist of New <br />York City. Prior to hecoming Speeial Master in the Colorado <br />Hiver case, he ~en"ed as judge of the southern U.S. di~trict of <br />New York and spet:jal tna:->ter in ~e\'eral important ca5es. In <br />1956 he was one of fOLlI" lawyers who served as special masters <br />to examine claims resulting from the sinking of the ltalian <br />Jill er :l/1d /"I'll fJrJI ;fl.) <br />The new I\Iaster made an inspection tour of the arcas in- <br />volved ill t.he controversy. Then he called a pn~-trial conference <br />in San Frand::.c() in A priJ, 1956. <br />On June 14 of that year. in a federal l::ourt-room in Sf'lll <br />Francisco_. llie trial itself got LInder way. <br />