Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />001791 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California transcend the magnitude of the stakes. <br /> <br /> <br />~he United States and Arizona have made common cause in <br /> <br />espousing a system of water rights, devoid of priority and <br /> <br /> <br />administered at the discretion of an official of the United <br /> <br />States. Arizona says that this system of water rights depends <br />exclusively on water storage and delivery contracts between <br />the United States and water users, or between the United states <br />and the states, executed pursuant to Arizona's reading of the <br />Boulder Canyon Project Act,Y and is unique to the main stream <br />of the Colorado River.S! <br />The United states agrees with Arizona, except that <br /> <br />the Government finds nothing unique in Boulder Canyon Project <br /> <br /> <br />Act water delivery contracts. These contracts, according to <br /> <br /> <br />the Government, are like other contracts under the reclamation <br /> <br /> <br />law. Despite the terms of section 8 of the Reclamat~on Act <br /> <br />y 45 Stat. l057, 43 U.S.C. ~~ 6l7-6l7t (l952). <br /> <br />S! Ariz. Answering Brief, June l, 1959, pp. 4l-5l. Although <br />Arizona and California both presented many days of testimony <br />and numerous exhibits on the concept and methods of measurement <br />of beneficial consumptive use of water, Arizona now says that <br />methods of measurement are for the Secretary of the Interior <br />to determine in his discretion and "by an administrative <br />judgment. . . with which the Court need not be concerned." <br />Ariz. Answering Brief, June l, 1959, p. 62. The United States <br />takes the same view. U.S. Opening Brief, April l, 1959, p. 65. <br /> <br />3. <br />