My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC00493
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSPC00493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:50:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:13:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
6/3/1963
Title
AZ Vs CA - Determination of Rights of States of the Lower Colorado River Basin to Waters of the Main Stream of the Colorado River - Opinion of the Supreme Court of the US - RE AZ Vs CA
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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
<br />002186 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNiA. <br /> <br />that the Secretary's contracts would be subject to any <br />compact dividing the benefits of the water between Ari- <br />zona, California, and Nevada, or any two of them, ap- <br />proved by Congress on or before January 1, 1929, but <br />that any such compact approved after that date should <br />be "subject to all contracts, if any, made by the Secre- <br />tary of the Interior under section 5 hereof prior to the <br />date of such approval and consent by Congress." <br />The Project Act became effective on June 25,1929, by <br />Presidential Proclamation,'O after six States, including <br />California, had ratified the Colorado River Compact and <br />the California legislature had accepted the limitation of <br />4,400,000 acre-feet 31 as required by the Act. Neither the <br />three States or any two of them ever entered into any ap- <br />portionment compact as authorized by ~~ 4 (a) and 8 (b). <br />After the construction of Boulder Dam the Secretary of <br />the Interior, purporting to act tinder the authority of the <br />Project Act, made contracts with various water users in <br />California for 5,362,000 acre-feet, with Nevada for 300,000 <br />acre-feet, and with Arizona for 2,800,000 acre-feet of <br />water from that stored at Lake Mead. <br />The Special Master appointed by this Court found that <br />the Colorado River Compact, the law of prior appropria- <br />tion, and the doctrine of equitable apportionment--by <br />which doctrine this Court in the absence of statute re- <br />solves interstate claims according to the equities-do not <br />control the issues in this case. The Master concluded <br />that, since the Lower Basin States had failed to make a <br />compact to allocate the waters among themselves as au- <br />thorized by ~~ 4 (a) and 8 (b), the Secretary's contracts <br />with the States had within the statutory scheme of ~~ 4 (a), <br />5, and 8 (b) effected an apportionment of the waters of <br />the mainstream which, according to the Master, were the <br /> <br />3046 Stat. 3000 (1929). <br />at California Limitation Act, Cal. Stat. 1929, c. 16, at 38. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.