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 />002210 <br /> <br />36 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />ment of the works except as otherwise provided, and ~ 8 <br />of the Reclamation Act, much like ~ 18 of the Project Act, <br />provides that it is not to be construed as affecting or <br />interfering with state laws "relating to the control, appro- <br />priation, use, or distribution of water used in irriga- <br />tion . . . ." 81 In our view, nothing in allY of these pro- <br />visions affects our decision, stated earlier, that it is the <br />Act and the Secretary's contracts, not the laws of prior <br />appropriation, that control the apportionment of water <br />among the States. Moreover, contrary to the Master's <br />conclusion, we hold that the Secretary in choosing be- <br />tween users within each State and in settling the terms of <br />his contracts is not bound by these sections to follow <br />state law. <br />The argument that ~ 8 of the Reclamation Act requires <br />the United States in the delivery of water to follow pri- <br />orities laid down by state law has already been disposed <br />of by this Court in Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 <br />U. S. 275 (1958), and reaffirmed in City of Fresno v. Cali- <br />fornia, 372 U. S. 627 (1963). In Ivanhoe we held that, <br />even though ~ 8 of the Reclamation Act preserved state <br />law, that general provision could not override a specific <br />provision of the same Act prohibiting a single landowner <br />from getting water for more than 160 acres. We said: <br />"As we read ~ 8, it merely requires the United States <br />to comply with state law when, in the construction <br />and operation of a reclamation project, it becomes <br /> <br />81 "Nothing in . . . [this Act] shall be construed as affecting or <br />intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any <br />State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or dis- <br />tribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired <br />thereunder, and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the <br />provisions of such sections, shall proceed in conformity with such <br />laws, and nothing . . . [herein] shall in a~y way affect any right of <br />any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appro- <br />priator, or user of water, in, to, or from any interstate stream or the <br />waters thereof." 43 U. S. c. ~ 383 (1958). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.