Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />lJ02u~3 <br /> <br />Rifkind Is <br />Stricken on <br />Eve of Ruling <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />- - <br /> <br /> <br />Simon W. Ritklnd. spe- <br />cial Supreme Court master <br />hearing arguments in the <br />I California - Arizona water <br />dispute, was hospitalized <br />Saturday after apparently <br />suffering a mild heart at- <br />tack, it was learned yester- <br />day. <br /> <br />Rifkind was stricken in his <br />downlown hotel room Friday <br />night a few hours after he <br />said he would make a major <br />ruling ~Ionday on a point <br />vital to California's case. <br /> <br />The 55-year-old jurist was <br />rushed to Mt. Zion Hospital <br />and placed under the care of <br />Dr. Edmond C. Albertson. It <br />was not known how long he <br />would be conlined but hos. <br />pital spokesmen reported his J <br />r condition .as "good," I <br />Northcutt Ely. chief coun- ( <br />r sel for California in the years- 1 <br />r long fight with Arizona Olo'er I <br />V rights to Colorado river water, t <br />9 said he and OPPOsing counsel \ <br />g were scheduled to mE>et with 1 <br />:t Rifkind today at the hospital <br />It was not known, however, I <br />L. ....hether Rifkind would make Il <br />e hU expected t\lUng durin, v <br />e the bedside meeting. :1. a <br />.. When he recessed court J <br />rt Friday, Rifkind said he would <br />rule "the first thing Monday , <br />I mQrning on the reJevan~ of I <br />y California's "prior rigbts" ] <br />d evidence, which he termed J <br />td the heart of California's case, <br />Ie Arizona brought the issue <br />to a head wben it objected to <br />~ California's prior.rights the- <br />g', ory, Arizona seeks to have <br />the matter adjudicated only ( <br />It on the ballls of equitable I <br />f ot'@d. 1 <br /> <br />SIMON RIFKIND <br />Supreme Court master <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />:Calif. Cites Old <br />.~Colorado Claim <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />f <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />Projects Back <br />to 1 B93 Shown , <br />SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 13 I <br />(UP)-The State of California t <br />went back to 1893 yesterday to' <br />.Itrengthen its claim to 5,300,OOO.t <br />acre feet or Colorado River water,I(I <br />" Henry Horton. attorney for the.~ <br />,lmperial Irrigation District, cited ) <br />that )'ear In his attempt to prove '1 <br />:the district Is entitled to Colorado s <br />'River \l,'ater und'!r the theory of <br />; prior appropriation. , s. <br />JS DEFESD:\ST ' ~ <br />. The district l.s one or the de- <br />fendants on the California side of L <br />the dispute o\'er the water, On IT <br />'the other side is Arizona, which g: <br />brought suit before the U.S, Suo <br />preme Court to lay title to 3,800,- A <br />000 annual acre' feet. h. <br />The Supreme Court ordered b: <br />Special Master Simon H. Rifklnd a <br />to hear the east" and to recom- h <br />.mend a \'ertlict. The case resumed II: <br />.Monday alter a 5-month recess, <br />U Arizona wins, California p' <br />..tands to lose 1.soo,OOO annual h, <br />;acre feet of 5,300.0Cl0 acre feet it <br />1a)'S It now needs. <br />.HE}" JSSL'"E <br />; One of the key Issu.es In the lcl <br />~case is whether CalifornIa's theory~1 <br />;of "first in time, first in right" b <br />'.should preva.lJ In deciding whc tl <br />'getJI bow much water, or whether O' <br />:Arizona', theory of ~uality of <br />rights lhould prevall, J <br />; A.ri2:ona clI.lmed yesurday that <br />California's theory is not relevant f <br />;to the issues. Spedal Master Rif. <br />kind deferred a decision In the k <br />:matter until the question "is fully a <br />,before me." " <br />: Horton. repreunUn( the Impe. c: <br />rial lrri(aUon District. said the tl <br />evidence 10 far introduced sbows ti <br />a '"chain of events that clearly <br />demonstrates" that lmperiaJ Dis- tl <br />trtct, projects were ~cel~..~ asl" <br />earlY_,ul893." "0 <br /> <br />y' <br />n <br />