Arizona v. California

376 U.S. 340, 84 S. Ct. 755, 11 L. Ed. 2d 757, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2417
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 9, 1964
Docket8 ORIG
StatusPublished
Cited by70 cases

This text of 376 U.S. 340 (Arizona v. California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S. Ct. 755, 11 L. Ed. 2d 757, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2417 (1964).

Opinion

It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that

I. For purposes of this decree:

(A) “Consumptive use” means diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation;

(B) “Mainstream” means the mainstream of the Colorado River downstream from Lee Ferry within the United States, including the reservoirs thereon;

(C) Consumptive use from the mainstream within a State shall include all consumptive uses of water of the mainstream, including water drawn from the mainstream by underground pumping, and including, but not limited to, consumptive uses made by persons, by agencies of that State, and by the United States for the benefit of Indian reservations and other federal establishments within the State;

(D) “Regulatory structures controlled by the United States” refers to Hoover Dam, Davis Dam, Parker Dam, Headgate Rock Dam, Palo Verde Dam, Imperial Dam, Laguna Dam and all other dams and works on the mainstream now or hereafter controlled or operated by the United States which regulate the flow of water in the mainstream or the diversion of water from the mainstream ;

(E) “Water controlled by the United States” refers to the water in Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu and all other water in the mainstream below Lee Ferry and within the United States;

*341 (F) “Tributaries” means all stream systems the waters of which naturally drain into the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry;

(G) “Perfected right” means a water right acquired in accordance with state law, which right has been exercised by the actual diversion of a specific quantity of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to definite municipal or industrial works, and in addition shall include water rights created by the reservation of mainstream water for the use of federal establishments under federal law whether or not the water has been applied to beneficial use;

(H) “Present perfected rights” means perfected rights, as here defined, existing as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act;

(I) “Domestic use” shall include the use of water for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, and other like purposes, but shall exclude the generation of electrical power;

(J) “Annual” and “Year,” except where the context may otherwise require, refer to calendar years;

(K) Consumptive use of water diverted in one State for consumptive use in another State shall be treated as if diverted in the State for whose benefit it is consumed.

II. The United States, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees be and they are hereby severally enjoined:

(A) From operating regulatory structures controlled by the United States and from releasing water controlled by the United States other than in accordance with the following order of priority:

(1) For river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control;

(2) For irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present perfected rights; and

(3) For power;

Provided, however, that the United States may release water in satisfaction of its obligations to the United *342 States of Mexico under the Treaty dated February 3, 1944, without regard to the priorities specified in this subdivision (A) ;

(B) From releasing water controlled by the United States for irrigation and domestic use in the States of Arizona, California and Nevada, except as follows:

(1) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use in the aforesaid three States, then of such 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use, there shall be apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet for use in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre-feet for use in California, and 300,000 acre-feet for use in Nevada;

(2) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use in the aforesaid States in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet, such excess consumptive use is surplus, and 50% thereof shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, however, that if the United States so contracts with Nevada, then 46% of such surplus shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 4% for use in Nevada;

(3) If insufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet in the aforesaid three States, then the Secretary of the Interior, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts and such representatives as the respective States may designate, may apportion the amount remaining available for consumptive use in such manner as is consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by the opinion of this Court herein, and with other applicable federal statutes, but in no event shall more than 4,400,000 acre-feet be *343 apportioned for use in California including all present perfected rights;

(4) Any mainstream water consumptively used within a State shall be charged to its apportionment, regardless of the purpose for which it was released;

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subdivision (B), mainstream water shall be released or delivered to water users (including but not limited to public and municipal corporations and other public agencies) in Arizona, California, and Nevada only pursuant to valid contracts therefor made with such users by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute;

(6) If, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a State will not be consumed in that State, whether for the reason that delivery contracts for the full amount of the State’s apportionment are not in effect or that users cannot apply all of such water to beneficial uses, or for any other reason, nothing in this decree shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from releasing such apportioned but unused water during such year for consumptive use in the other States. No rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof;

(C) From applying the provisions of Article 7 (d) of the Arizona water delivery contract dated February 9, 1944, and the provisions of Article 5 (a) of the Nevada water delivery contract dated March 30, 1942, as amended by the contract dated January 3,1944, to reduce the apportionment or delivery of mainstream water to users within the States of Arizona and Nevada by reason of any uses in such States from the tributaries flowing therein ;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States
104 F.4th 1314 (Federal Circuit, 2024)
Apache Stronghold v. USA
95 F.4th 608 (Ninth Circuit, 2024)
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
599 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 2023)
Navajo Nation v. Usdoi
Ninth Circuit, 2022
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Navajo Nation v. DOI
D. Arizona, 2019
Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior
876 F.3d 1144 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
34 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Arizona, 2014)
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Clinch
2007 MT 63 (Montana Supreme Court, 2007)
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage District v. Robertson
123 P.3d 1122 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2005)
West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources
26 P.3d 1171 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2001)
Arizona v. California
530 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. United States
28 Fed. Cl. 569 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. United States
23 Cl. Ct. 417 (Court of Claims, 1991)
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc.
818 P.2d 158 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1991)
Nussbaum v. Weeks
214 Cal. App. 3d 1589 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
376 U.S. 340, 84 S. Ct. 755, 11 L. Ed. 2d 757, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizona-v-california-scotus-1964.