BOARD02425

• Board Meeting Date: 10/31/1957
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

/:l09

I

the United States Senate. These condi-
tions, however, were not accepted by
Mexico, but nevertheless have always
been considered to be a part of that
treaty. In particular, the conditions
at.tached by the United States had to do
with the distribution of water along the
Colorado River.

At the time of the Mexican treaty
there were some apprehensions on the
part of the States in the Colorado River
basin that the treaty could be construed
to supersede state laws concerning the
administration of waters. The United
States Senate therefore attached condi-
tions to the treaty to the effect that
the treaty could not supersede any State
laws pertaining to irrigation water.
The Niagara case, without a doubt, as it
now stands, sets a legal precedent which
in effect destroys the conditions that
were attached to the Mexican treaty for
the benefit of the States in the Colorado
River basin.

Following the decision in the Niagara
case Mr. Northcutt Ely, who represents the
State of California, requested that the
other States of the Colorado River basin
join in a brief as amicus curiae in the
United States Supreme Court to urge that
the Niagara case be vacated. At the pre-
sent time the Niagara case is moot. The
parties to that case have resolved their
differences and there is no longer any
necessity for the court ruling. The State
of California has therefore petitioned the
Supreme Court to set aside the Niagara
case either on the grounds that it is er-
roneous or that it is now moot.

I

Since our relations with California
have been somewhat strained and since I
am inclined to distrust the motives, gen-
erally speaking, of Mr. Ely in involving
us in litigation of any type, I was ori-
ginally inclined to refuse Mr. Ely's invi-
tation to participate in the case. I