Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"I <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />001401 <br /> <br />*450 <br />consumptive use *e1sewhere, and of preventing the benficial ccnsumptive use in <br />Arizona cf the unapprcpriated water of the river novr flovTing in that state; <br />that these things are being done under oolor of authority of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act; that this act purports to authorize the construction of the dam and <br />reservoir, the diversion of the water from Arizona, and its perpetual use <br />elsewhere; that the act directs and requires Wilbur to permit no use or future <br />appropriation of the unappropriated water of the main stream of the Colorado <br />river, now flovTing in Arizona and to be stored by the said dam and reservoir, <br />except subject to the conditions and reservations contained in the Colorado <br />River Compact; and that the act thus attempts to enforce as against Arizona, <br />and to its irreparable injury, the compact which it has refused to ratify. <br />The bill prays that the compact and the act "and each and every part thereof, <br />be decreed to be unconstitutional, vold and of no effect; that the defendants <br />and each of them be permanently enjoined and restrained from enforcing or <br />carrying out said compact or said act, or any of the provisions thereof, and <br />from carrying out the three pretended contracts hereinabove referred to, or <br />any of them, or any of their provisions, (meaning certain contracts executed <br />by Yfilbur on behalf of the United States for the use of the stored water and <br />developed power after the project shall have been completed) and from doing <br />any other act or thing purnuant to or under color of said Boulder Canyon Pro- <br />ject Act." <br /> <br />Process was made returnable on January 12, 1931; and on that day all of <br />the defendants moved that the bill be dismissed. The grounds assigned in the <br />motions arel (1) That the bill does not join the United states, an indispensable <br />partl (2) that the bill does not present any Case or controversy of which the <br />court can take judicial cognizance; (3) that the proponed action of the def- <br />endants will not invade any vested right of the plaintiff or any * of its <br /> <br />*451 <br />citizens; (4) that the bill does not state facts sufficient to constitute a <br />cause of action against any of the defendants. The case was heard on these <br />motions . <br /> <br />The wrongs against which redress is sought are, first, the threatened <br />invasion of the quasi sovereignty of Arizona by rIilbur in building the dam and <br />reservoir without first securing the approval of the state engineer as prescribed <br />by!,,' its laws; and, second, the threatened invasion of Arizona's quasi sovereign <br />right to prohibit or to permit appropriation, under its own lawn, of the unappro- <br />priated water of the COlorado river flowing within the state. The latter invaSion, <br />it is alleged, will consist in the exercise, under the act and the compact, of a <br />claimed superior right to store, divert, and use such water. <br /> <br />FIRST. The claim that quasi sovereign rights of Arizona will be invaded <br />by the mere construction of the dam and reservoir rests upon the fact that both <br />structures will be located partly within the state. At Black Canyon, the site of <br />too. dam, the middle channel of the river is the boundary between Nevada and <br />Arizona. The latter's statutes prohibit the construction of any dam whatsoever <br />until written approval of plans and specifications shall have been obtained <br />from the state engineer; and the statutes declare in terms that this provision <br />applies to dams to be erected by the United States. Arizona laws 1929, c. 102, <br />Pars. 1-4. See, also, Revised Code of 1928, Pars. 3280-3286. The United States <br /> <br />-2- <br />