Laserfiche WebLink
<br />S 21.02[6] <br /> <br />MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE <br /> <br />21-12 <br /> <br />[6] Arizona v. California <br /> <br />Arizona grudgingly ratified the Compact in 1944 and then <br />sought congressional approval of the Central Arizona Project <br />(CAP), which envisioned the diversion of 1.2 m.a.f. of main- <br />stream water at Lake Havasu to be used in the Phoenix and <br />Tucson areas. California stalled this enterprise by convinc- <br />ing Congress that Arizona's rights to the water it sought to <br />divert were questionable. In 1952 Arizona brought a suit un- <br />der the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme <br />Court to resolve those rights.]] <br /> <br />Contrary to California's contentions, the Supreme Court <br />rejected both the law of prior appropriation and the doctrine <br />of equitable apportionment as the basis for a decision. Ari- <br />zona v. California 34 held that by passing the Boulder Canyon <br />Project Act, Congress had created a means for a statutory <br />apportionment of the mainstream water of the Colorado <br />River among California, Arizona, and Nevada. Section 4 of <br />the Act, in the Court's opinion, allocated 2.8 m.a.f. of the 7.5 <br />m.a.f. apportioned to the Lower Basin by Article III(a) of the <br />Compact to Arizona, 4.4 m.a.f. to California, and 300,000 to <br />Nevada, while allowing Arizona and Nevada the exclusive <br />use of their tributaries. Half of the surplus water, if any, in <br />the mainstream went to Arizona and half to California. In <br />the event of a shortage of mainstream water, the Secretary <br />of the Interior was directed to equitably prorate the defi- <br />ciency. The federal government was awarded reserved rights <br />for its reserved lands in the Lower Basin, and five Indian <br />reservations received about 1.0 m.a.f. of reserved rights wa- <br /> <br />33 Herbert Hoover supposedly described the Colorado River Compact as a "40- <br />year vacation from litig~tion." 69 Cong. Rec. 9424 (1928). If so, it was certainly what <br />is sometimes referred to as a "working" vacation. Prior to this time, Arizona had <br />been involved in four major lawsuits relating to the Compact: Arizona v, C8.lifornia, <br />283 U.S. 423 (1931); Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934); United St<ltes v. Ari- <br />zona, 295 D,S. 174 (1935); Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558 (1936), Nor had Ari- <br />zona been content merely to battle in the courtroom. In 1934 Governor Benjamin <br />Moeur mustered the Arizona National Guard and an Arizona "navy" consisting of <br />one ferryboat to halt the construction of the Parker Darn, which was to serve as the <br />diversion point for the aqueduct of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern <br />California. See Hundley, supra note 9, at 294. . <br />34 373 U,S. 546 (1963). <br />