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

. Any of the parties may apply at the foot of
t?IS decree for Its amendment or for further re-
hef. The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit
for the purpose of any order, direction, or modi-
fication of the decree, ~r any supplementary de-
cree, that may at any bme be deemed proper in
relation to the subject matter in controversy.

I d. at 353.

4. Completing the Priority System Through Arti-
cle VI of the 1964 Decree: The 1979 De-
cree-Arizona v, California, 439 U.S. 419
(1979)

The deadline set in Article VI for determining pri-
orities was not met by the parties. Over several years
the State Parties and the United States unsuccessfully
attempted to fashion a list of present perfected rights
with priority dates and a decree to implement the
mandate of Article VI for a complete list of priority of
claims to present perfected rights including all such
state and federal claims.
Because of the parties' inability to agree upon the
"present perfected rights" and their priority dates, the
State Parties in May, 1977, filed with the Court a joint
motion for determination of those'rights and for entry
of a supplemental decree." The United States, in Nov-
ember, 1977, responded with a motion objecting to
parts of the supplemental decree proposed by the
State Parties." Later these initially-opposed forces
found themselves in agreement over these matters and
on May 30, 1978, filed a joint motion for a supplemen-

37. Joint Motion for a Determination of Present Perfected Rights
and the Entry of . Supplemental Decree (May 1977),
38. Response of the United Stetes (Nov, 1977).
-.;:

18

00329Q

.

tal decree under Article VI, including a listing of rights
and priority dates..e The parties in agreement, com-
prising a group of all named parties, applied to the
Court for entry of the supplemental decree "in order
to avoid future controversies....o

On January 9, 1979, the Supre~e €ourt entered a
supplemental decree as requested by the then-existing
parties. Arizona y. California, 439 U.S. 419 (1979).
That Supplemental Decree established the priority
of water rights in the event of an insufficient water
supply (i.e., less than 7.5 million acre-feet annually).
Under that Decree the Indian water rights, as present
perfected rights, were explicitly given general priority
over the major water rights of the State Parties. This
preference for Indian water rights included any rights
associated with expanded-recognized boundaries. But
with respect to "miscellaneous present perfected
rights," listed in this Decree, th!l order of priority was
to be determined by "priority date." And the Indian
water rights and the "miscellaneous present perfected
rights" were listed in this 1979 Decree with the acre-
foot entitlements matched with their respective prior-
ity dates. [d. at 423-36. Thus, the work outlined in Ar-
ticle VI had been completed.
The 1979 Decree also contained several limitations
on its scope. It specifically stated that:

(1) The following listed present perfected
rights relate to the quantity of water which
may be used by each ClaimlU1t and the liat
is not intended to limit or redefine the ~
of use set forth in [the 1964] Decree; .

39. Joint Motion for tho Entry of a Supplemental Decree (May 1978).
40. Iii at 23.

19