WSPC04714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(J018;J9 . . per~etuate the testimony of negotiators of the Compact which she alleged would prove, for purposes of litigation sometime in the future, that the Compact negotiators in an unannounced side agreement at Santa Fe had agreed that III(b) waters under the Compact were identified with the Gila River system and were to be for the exclusive use of Arizona. The Court rejected Arizona's second suit, holding that III(b) waters are from the Colorado River system (i.e., the Colorado River and its tribu- taries) and that the oral and unreported understanding of the negotiators, if proved, would be incompetent to contradict the compact.Y In 1935, Arizona made her third attempt. This time Arizona sought a "judicial apportionment" of the unappropriated waters of the Colorado River, and an earmarking of an "equitable share" of those waters for the future use of Arizona. The Court noted that Arizona's claim presented a justiciable controversy "only if Arizona, as a sovereign state, or her citizens, whom she represents, have present rights in the unappropriated water of the river, or if the privilege to appropriate the water is capable of division and when partitioned may be judicially protected from appropriations by others pending its exercise."Y Y Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 34l (l934). Arizona in the current suit made three unsuccessful attempts to introduce the "minutes" of the Compact negotiators in evidence. These "minutes" do not contain any hint of the apocryphal side agreement with respect to the Gila. 2/ Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558, 567 (1936). The court has never yet asserted power to make a judicial apportion- ment such as Arizona sought. 21.