WSP03024

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River Basin Colorado River Litigation - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 2/22/1982
• Author: Elbert P Tuttle
• Title: In the Supreme Court of the US - October Term 1981 - Report - Special Master Elbert P Tuttle
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

003285

Section 5 of the Project Act."s See 43 U.S.C. S 6l7(d).
He found the Project Act to be "the source of author-
ity for the allocation and delivery of water to Arizona,
California, and Nevada from Lake Mead and from the
Colorado River below Lake Mead.... He derived this
authority of the Secretary of the Interior from his
reading of several sections of the Project Act'O as well
as the legislative history of the Act. In addition, the
California legislature had limited the amount of water
that a state could divert annually.ll One significant
limitation on the Secretary's authority was that Sec-
tion 6 of the Project Act requires the terms of the con-
tracts to satisfy water rights perfected by June 25,
1929," the effective date of the Project Act. .see id. S
6l7(e). Master Rifkind viewed the Project Act as, thus,
setting the terms for water unappropriated as of that
date. Such water could, according to Master Rifkind,
be made available for use within the state only if the
Secretary should contract for the delivery of the water
to that state." Once the contracts were in force, the
Secretary retained discretion to decide how much of
this water could be consumed." Of course, once the
water was released for consumption, the Secretary was
obliged to allocate certain quantit\es to each state."
Under these authorities, Master Rifkind found the
division of water rights among these three states. He
found California limited annually to 4,400,000 acre-

feet of consumptive use" of the first 7,500,000 acre-
feet of water stored in Lake Mead and flowing in the
mainstream from Hoover Dam.n He found that the
Secretary effectively contracted with the three states
or entitie~ within those states. Under these contracts,
Arizona was entitled to an annual skare of 2,800,000
acre-feet of consumptive use of water. California agen-
cies were entitled under contract to 5,362,000 acre-feet
of consumptive use per year, subject to the limitation
that the Master found elsewhere which restricted Cali-
fornia's share to 4,400,000 acre-feet annuall1' Nevada
was entitled to 300,000 acre-feet.'s The water in excess
, of 7,500,000 acre-feet, he found, belonged 50% to Cali-
fornia and 50% to Arizona, unless the Secretary con-
tracted with Nevada to allocate 4% of the surplus to
Nevada at the expense of Arizona." In event of a
shortage, below 7,500,000 acre-feet in a year, the states
were to receive a proportional allocation based on their
respective shares of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet.so
Water rights perfected under state law or reserved
under federal law before June 25, 1929, the effective
date of the Project Act, were titled "present perfected
rights'''' and were to be satisfied first in any event.1I
Thus, rights in existence at the time of the Project Act

:

8. SPECIAL MAsTER'S REPORT at 138.
9. [d. at 151-54.
10. Id. at 151.64.
11. [d. at 166 & 0.27.
12. [d. at 152 & 0.20.
13. [d. at 152-53.
14. [d. at 221-37.
15. [d. at 222.

16. No used by the Special Master and the Court, tbe phrase COD-
sumptive use means the diversions from the river less any ntum flow
available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of
tbe Meucan Treaty obligation. For the definition 81 adopted in the
Court's decree, see 37S U.s. at 340.
17. SPECIAL MABrBa's REPoRT at 167-94.
18. Id. at 201-10, 221-47.
19. Id. at 224-25.
20. Id. at 233.
21. Id. at 306-11. For tha definition,. adopted in ths Court's decree,
see 376 U.S. at 341.
22. SPECIAL MAsTER'S REPORT' at 306-07.

8

9