Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Ou1790 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />THE ISSUES IN ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />Some lawsuits are important because of the amount <br />of property they involve, others are important because of the <br />principles they establish. The Dred scottll case was a <br />primary cause of the Civil War, although the only immediate <br />result of the Supreme Court's decision was to deny freedom to <br />a slave whose master had determined to free him anyway.51 <br />Arizona v. California, now in the seventh year of <br /> <br />litigation in the original jurisdiction of the United States <br /> <br />Supreme Court is an important case for both reasons. The <br />quantity of the water rights at issue among Arizona, California, <br />Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and the United States is many times <br />the quantity involved in any previous water rights suit, whether <br />among states in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court <br /> <br />or among water users in state or lower federal courts. <br /> <br />The magnitude of the water rights, whether stated in <br /> <br />terms of the number of acre-feet per annum or in terms of the <br /> <br /> <br />value of the water,JV obscures the fact that the issues in <br /> <br />11 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (l9 How.) 393 (l857). <br /> <br />51 Hill, D~cisive Battles of the Law ch. IV (1907). <br /> <br />21 The Tucson Arizona Star, in an editorial of May 9, 1959, <br />reported an estimate that California had spent $l,500,000 <br />directly on Arizona v. California, and Arizona $l,OOO,OOO. <br />"If these figures are correct, and probably they are very close, <br />then here is a lawsuit the potential gains (or losses) of <br />which exceed the per-party cost by 50 or 60 times in any single <br />year. This is based on the fact that an acre-foot of water <br />affects an irrigated economy during times such as these by <br />$'::>0 to $75." <br /> <br />2. <br />