Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(J018J8 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In 1930, Arizona brought the first of three suits <br />against the six other Colorado River basin states, joining <br />the Secretary of the Interior, to have the Project Act and <br />the Compact declared unconstitutional. The Court dismissed <br />Arizona's complaint, holding that since Arizona had not ratified <br />the Compact, neither the Project Act nor the Compact prevented <br />Arizona from appropriating any of the 9,000,000 acre-feet which <br />Arizona alleged was unappropriated.1I <br />In 1934, Arizona tried again. This time Arizona <br />alleged that by the water delivery contracts negotiated by <br />the Secretary of the Interior with California agencies, under <br />authority of the Project Act and the reclamation laws, Cali- <br />fornia and the Secretary were asserting a right to appropriate <br />the III(b) waters for use in California. Arizona sought to <br /> <br />11 Arizona v. California, 283 u.s. 423 (l93l). At 462, <br />the Court quoted from ~ l8 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act as <br />the basis of this holding: "Nothing herein shall be construed <br />as interfering with such rights as the States now have either <br />to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies <br />and enact such laws as they may deem necessary with respect to <br />the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their <br />borders, except as modified by the Colorado River compact or <br />other interstate agreement." Arizona and the United States <br />now contend that the law of appropriation, if it ever existed <br />on the navigable Colorado, was superseded by the Project Act. <br />The United States says ~ 18 does not apply to the main stream. <br />(United States Reply Brief, p. 28.) Arizona says that it does <br />not apply to appropriative rights interstate or against the <br />United states. (Arizona Answering Brief, p. 46.) <br /> <br />20. <br />