My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04714
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
18000-18999
>
WSPC04714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:40:39 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:47:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.100.10
Description
Colorado River - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/17/1959
Author
Charles E Corker
Title
AZ Vs CA - Legal Documents 1958-1965 - The Issues in Arizona V California - A Paper Prepared for Presentation at CU Western Resources Conference
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001818 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Can issues under the Colorado River Compact be <br /> <br /> <br />determined in the absence of the upper basin staws? When it <br /> <br /> <br />urged the Court to take jurisdiction of the dispute, the United <br /> <br /> <br />States listed disputed issues of interpretation of the Colorado <br /> <br />River Compact as paramount among the questions requiring <br /> <br /> <br />decision.1I When California moved to join the upper states as <br /> <br /> <br />parties to the litigation so those issues could be decided, the <br /> <br /> <br />United States stood mute and took no part in the argument as to <br /> <br /> <br />whether the upper states were indispensable to the decision.g/ <br /> <br /> <br />On April 1, 1959, after trial had closed, the United states for <br /> <br /> <br />the first time took the position that the Colorado River Compact <br /> <br /> <br />cannot be construed in the present suit. In practical effect, <br /> <br /> <br />however, the United States proposes a decision very much like <br /> <br /> <br />that urged by Arizona, under which the Gila River system would <br /> <br /> <br />be excluded from the Compact. As to the other lower basin <br /> <br /> <br />tributaries, the Government briefs express great uncertainty.~ <br /> <br /> <br />The United states, agreeing with Arizona and Nevada, takes the <br /> <br /> <br />position that because of the Mexican Treaty the upper states <br /> <br /> <br />are obligated to deliver more than the 75,000,000 acre-feet per <br /> <br /> <br />10 years required by Article III(d) of the Compact, although <br /> <br /> <br />only Nevada now specifies quantitatively the Mexican obligation <br /> <br /> <br />of the upper states. <br /> <br />11 United states Petition of Intervention, pars. XXXII, <br />XXXIII. <br /> <br />g/ Transcript of Oral Argument before the late Special Master <br />George I. Haight, p. 5. <br /> <br />11 United States Reply Brief, June 1, 1959, p. 10 n.3. <br /> <br />30. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.