Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'Oh'16^94 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />rights of the Lower Basin states to the waters of the Colorado <br />River had been determined either by litigation or by voluntary <br />agreement. Faced with this political reality, the state of <br />Arizona in 1952 again invoked the original jurisdiction of the <br />Supreme Court of the United States by filing a complaint against <br />the state of California. This time the Supreme Court accepted <br />jurisdiction . <br /> <br />The suit requested an adjudication between the states of <br />Arizona and California as to the division of the waters of the <br />Colorado River and its tributaries between those two states. After <br />the filing of the complaint, the United States and the states of <br />Nevada, New rtJexico and Utah were joined as parties. The Supreme <br />Court referred the case to Mr. George I. Haight as Special Master. <br />Mr. Haight died in 1955 and the case was then referred to Mr, Simon <br />H. Rifkind as successor to Mr. P.aight. <br /> <br />In January, 1961, the Special Master reported his findings, <br />conclusions and recOllllllended decrees to the Supreme Court, Subse- <br />quent oral arguments and briefs were presented to the Court <br />attacking, or in some cases supporting, the Maf't':er's :fbid4!gscarid <br />decree. On June 3, 1963, the Supreme Court rendered its decision <br />in the case. . <br /> <br />In its decision the Supreme Court stated: <br /> <br />"As we see this case, the question of each State's <br />share of the waters of the Colorado and its tributaries <br />turns on the meaning and the scope of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act passed by Congress in 1928." <br /> <br />In support of this line of reasoning the Court held that there was <br />nothing in the Colorado River Compact which purported to divide <br />water among the Lower Basin states, and that therefore the Colo- <br />rado River Compact did not control. This conclusion is somewhat <br />baffling since the project act makes repeated reference to the <br />Colorado River Compact. To put it another way, the project act <br />cannot be interpreted without first interpreting the Compact. <br /> <br />That portion of the Boulder Canyon Project Act which apparently <br />controlled and det.ermined the Court's decision reads as follows: <br /> <br />"The States of Arizona, California, and Nevada are <br />authorized to enter into an agreement which shall provide <br />(1) that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet annually apportioned <br />to the lower basin by paragraph (a) of Article III of the <br />Colorado Rivl~r compact, there shall be apportioned to the <br />State of Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to the State of <br />Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet for exclusive beneficial con- <br />sumptive use in perpetuity, and (2) that the State of <br />Arizona may annually use one-half of the excess or surplus <br />waters unapportioned by the Colorado River compact, and <br />(3) that the State of Arizona shall have the exclusive <br /> <br />. <br />" <br />" <br /> <br />-13- <br />