My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC03421
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC03421
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:35:01 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:55:27 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
12/1/1964
Title
AZ Vs CA - Arizona V California and Pacific Southwest Water Problems - California Assembly Interim Committee Reports - 1963-1965 - Volume 26-Number 13
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.
/
174
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 />OJ2J38 <br /> <br />ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA AND PACIFIC SOUTHWEST WATER PROBLEMS 41 <br /> <br />ticial consumptive use of 2.8 million acre-feet of water each year from <br />the Colorado River System, and that California be limited to 4.4 million <br />acre-feet. The United States and Nevada intervened and on motion of <br />California, New Mexico and Utah were added as parties to the case. <br />A chronology of major events in the case is as follows: <br /> <br />April 13, 19;"';2 ____.______...___:l\1otion to file a complaint filed by Arizona <br />.January U),lDG3 _ __.___ __..___Conrt g-rantcd motion <br />June 1, 1954__~_ ________.,.. ___ George I. Haig-ht of Chicago appointed Special Master <br />.July IG, 19G4 _____.._______.____Motion by California to join Colorado, New Mexico, <br />Utah, and 'Vyoming :1S parties <br />July 18, 1955____.____________Special Master Haight's report recommending that <br />California's joinder motion be denied <br />October 10, 19::>G______ _.. _____.Following Mr. Haight's death, Simon H. Rifkind ap- <br />pointed Special Master <br />October 20, 1955____________.California's filed exceptions to Special Master Haight's <br />recommendations on joinder motion <br />December 12, 1955___________Court denied California's motion to join as parties <br />Colorado and Wyoming, and granted the motion <br />to jOin as parties Utah and New Mexico only to <br />the extent of their capacity as Lower Basin <br />S ta tes <br />.June 14, 1956_____________._.__Trial began in San Francisco <br />August 28, 1958__________ ___Trial concluded <br />May 5, 1960______________ __ Draft report circulated among parties <br />December 5, 1960_____________Report of Special Master issued <br />January 8-11, 1962__________0ral arguments before court (16 hours) <br />November 13-14, 19G2________Additional arguments before court (6 hours) <br />June 3, 1963________________0pinion of court rendered <br />September 16, 1963_________ _California petition for rebearing filed <br />October 21, 1963____________.California petition for rehearing denied <br />March 9, 1964_______________Decree issued <br /> <br />At the trial, which lasted over two years, 340 witnesses were heard <br />orally or by deposition, thousands of exhibits were received and 25,000 <br />pages of transcript were filed. The Master's Report was a 433-page <br />volume. <br /> <br />MAJOR ISSUES <br /> <br />1. Exclusion of Tributaries <br />As stated by the Special Master: <br />Perhaps the most crucial issue in the case arise from these con- <br />flicting views, an issue that is summarized by this question: Is the <br />application of the (Boulder Ca.nyon) Project Act limited to the <br />mainstream of the Colorado River or does it apply to the entire <br />river system in thc Lower Basin, that is, to both mainstream and <br />tributaries? (Emphasis added) 1 <br /> <br />In its opinion the court stated: <br /> <br />As we see this case, the question of each State's share of the <br />waters of the Colorado and its tributaries turns on the meaning <br />and the scope of the Boulder Canyon Project Act .' . . That mean" <br />ing and scope can be better understood when it is set against its <br />background-the gravity of the Southwest's water problems; the <br />inability of local groups or individual States to deal with these <br />enormous problems; the continued failure of the States to agree <br /> <br />1 Master's Report, op. cit'J at 4, 5. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.