My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 2:47:47 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 2:07:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropoltan Water District of Southern California, City of San Deigo, And Couty of San Diego Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
State
AZ
Date
7/14/1956
Title
Supreme Court: October Term 1955 State of Arizona v. State of California Reporter's Transcript/Trial Proceedings
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
19 <br />in ,oart because we were not *parties at ltaat time, to the <br />eom,pao1-a and in part because, so far as the Project Act <br />was eons axnedj as I will -develop more fully in a <br />V <br />,"Aliforz.Aa c owed ed tine point ;�In issue and "there fore, tltiare <br />was nothiag to deoide. I will emTllazuiz hit POf-U-it in <br />THE <br />MASTIMR: <br />We w.-`11 <br />be very Clad to have you e-ate borate <br />on ti-lat. <br />I read <br />it befor-a <br />the pre- t:mlal con fere-race <br />-V U- Go pri ve ver -r -i r <br />i, LR. R-k do wan"' 0 <br />to that because dlreatI7 affects the pr-ob.ens 'here, <br />Now the third case in tr-,e 3eriles is the Ar'izo,--ia�-C-a*.Iiforni-a-- <br />case of lq.6. That was the suit in the natura of an appor- <br />tionment. That was diermLssed be .-Muse Vshe United � tates i.-Yas <br />not a party., a dilfficulty which hwas been obvia-tiod in th:*Ls <br />Case * <br />There followed -aurfoer folar� and what we hople 4 , przaY <br />J 0! ha <br />is not an egad es s c hai Vb1 3 au I t thwe pre 3 el�t 1C S <br />1,ia s no t, b-'t- o u <br />ii, j1 ded the pitfa" s of its jr-TedecesSOVB - <br />i ace <br />advance Of r- flux We do riot now clai-M <br />in n ixqterfere� <br />that Article 111(b) waters are technically equated to the <br />Gila as a matter of laiy,, as Justice Bxmndais held could <br />adeis <br />not be dor-e,,, but to f011014 the loader as justice Bra, <br />says. it Is -not a mal., of fact. <br />Filially, we have obviously avoided the pitfalls Of <br />c <br />otvAng tb- UWZ-Ited Sta"Ces. <br />the th-x-ee cases by J. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.