Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i\ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />OiH792 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />of 1902, however, the Government denies that reclamation con- <br /> <br /> <br />tracts create or recognize water rights with priorities in <br /> <br /> <br />accordance with state law.!! <br /> <br />If the United States and Arizona prevail, Arizona v. <br /> <br />California will likely establish new ground rules for water <br /> <br /> <br />rights, both among states and within states, far from the <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado River basin and far from the places where waters of <br /> <br /> <br />the Colorado River system are used. Arizona v. California <br /> <br />may be the Dred Scott case in the law of water rights. <br /> <br />!! U.S. Reply Brief, June 1, 1959, pp. 40-43. For land- <br />mark cases construing S 8 of the Reclamation Act (32 Stat. 390, <br />43 U.S.C. SS 372, 383 (l952)), see Ickes v. Fox, 300 U.S. 82 <br />(1937); Fox v. Ickes, 137 F.2d 30 (D.C. Cir. 1943), cert. <br />denied, 320 U.S. 792; Wyoming v. COlorado, 259 U.S. ~lY, 463 <br />(l922); Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 6ll-l6 (l945). <br /> <br />4. <br />