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 />001828 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and within that part of New <br />Mexico in the drainage of the Colorado River, excepting <br />only those lands which had been granted by the previous <br />sovereign. With this transfer of ownership of the <br />public lands, there passed also the ownership of the <br />rights to use the waters appurtenant thereto. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. . . . <br /> <br />"By the Desert Land Act of l877 (19 stat. 377; <br />43 U.S.C. ~ 32l), Congress reserved for 'appropriation <br />and use of the public' non-navigable surplus waters <br />upon the public domain in the States and Territories <br />referred to in the Act. In Californla Oregon Power <br />Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 29:;' U.S. lLl.2, l62 <br />(l935), the Supreme Court held that 'as the owner of <br />the public domain, the government possessed the power <br />to dispose of land and water thereon together, or to <br />dispose of them separately.' It was further held that <br />by this act the waters upon the public domain were <br />'severed' from the land, and that thereafter a patent <br />of public lands did not carry with the land any right <br />to use the water thereon except las fixed or acknow- <br />ledged by the customs, laws, and judicial decisions <br />of the state of their location.' <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />. . . <br /> <br />"It is on this background of Federal law that the <br />validity of the Colorado doctrine of state ownership <br />of unappropriated waters must be considered. We ask: <br />Where in the record in this case or elsewhere is there <br />evidence of a grant to the States of the Lower Basin <br />by a previous title holder of any of the waters, or <br />of the right to use the same, of the Colorado River? <br /> <br />"The answer is plain. There is no such evidence. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />"Additionally, the waters of concern here are <br />navigable waters. The Desert Land Act applies,oply <br />to non-navigable waters on the public domain."l! <br /> <br />y <br /> <br />Footnote on next page. <br /> <br />40. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.