Arizona v. California

Supreme Court

Arizona v. California

439 U.S. 419, 99 S. Ct. 995, 58 L. Ed. 2d 627, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 210

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 9, 1979

Docket8 ORIG

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 439 U.S. 419 (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, 439 U.S. 419, 99 S. Ct. 995, 58 L. Ed. 2d 627, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 210 (1979).

Pincite

Opinion

439 U.S. 419 (1979)

ARIZONA
v.
CALIFORNIA ET AL.

No. 8, Orig.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided June 3, 1963. Decree entered March 9, 1964. Amended decree entered February 28, 1966. Argued October 10, 1978. Decided and supplemental decree entered January 9, 1979. ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE AND MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE.

Ralph E. Hunsaker argued the cause for complainant.

Douglas B. Noble, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for defendant State of California et al. Robert P. Will argued the cause for defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al.

With Messrs. Hunsaker, Noble, and Will on the responses of the State of Arizona et al. to both motions to intervene were Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General of California, Sanford N. Gruskin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, R. H. Connett and N. Gregory Taylor, Assistant Attorneys General, Edwin J. Dubiel, Emil Stipanovich, Jr., and Anita E. Ruud, Deputy Attorneys General, Roy H. Mann, Maurice C. Sherrill, R. L. Knox, Jr., Burt Pines, Gilbert W. Lee, John W. Witt, C. M. Fitzpatrick, Joseph Kase, Jr., Robert List, Attorney General of Nevada, Lyle Rivera, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Brian McKay, Deputy Attorney General, and Thomas G. Nelson.

With Mr. Noble on the response of the State of California et al. to the motion to intervene of the Colorado River Indian Tribes et al. were Messrs. Younger, Gruskin, Connett, Taylor, *420 Dubiel, Stipanovich, Ms. Ruud, Messrs. Sherrill, Knox, List, Rivera, McKay, and Nelson.

With Mr. Will on the response of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California et al. to the motion to intervene of the Colorado River Indian Tribes et al. were Messrs. Pines, Lee, Witt, Fitzpatrick, and Kase.

Raymond C. Simpson argued the cause and filed briefs for the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe et al.

Lawrence D. Aschenbrenner argued the cause for the Cocopah Indian Tribe.

Terry Noble Fiske argued the cause for the Colorado River Indian Tribes.

Louis F. Claiborne argued the cause for the United States. On the memorandums for the United States were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Moorman, and Myles E. Flint.^[*]

PER CURIAM AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE.

The United States of America, Intervenor, State of Arizona, Complainant, the California Defendants (State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, County of San Diego), and State of Nevada, Intervenor, pursuant to Art. VI of the Decree entered in the case on March 9, 1964, at 376 U. S. 340, and amended on February 28, 1966, at 383 U. S. 268, have agreed to the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State and their priority dates as set forth herein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the joint motion of the United States, the State of Arizona, the California Defendants, and the State of Nevada to enter a supplemental decree is granted and that said present *421 perfected rights in each State and their priority dates are determined to be as set forth below, subject to the following:

(1) The following listed present perfected rights relate to the quantity of water which may be used by each claimant and the list is not intended to limit or redefine the type of use otherwise set forth in said Decree.

(2) This determination shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determinations relating to settlement of Indian reservation boundaries referred to in Art. II (D) (5) of said Decree.

(3) Article IX of said Decree is not affected by this list of present perfected rights.

(4) Any water right listed herein may be exercised only for beneficial uses.

(5) In the event of a determination of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy present perfected rights pursuant to Art. II (B) (3) of said Decree, the Secretary of the Interior shall, before providing for the satisfaction of any of the other present perfected rights except for those listed herein as "MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS" (rights numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) in the order of their priority dates without regard to State lines, first provide for the satisfaction in full of all rights of the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, Cocopah Indian Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation as set forth in Art. II (D) (1)-(5) of said Decree, provided that the quantities fixed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II (D) of said Decree shall continue to be subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined. Additional present perfected rights so adjudicated by such adjustment shall be in annual quantities not to exceed the quantities of mainstream water necessary to *422 supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of the practicably irrigable acres which are included within any area determined to be within a reservation by such final determination of a boundary and for the satisfaction of related uses. The quantities of diversions are to be computed by determining net practicably irrigable acres within each additional area using the methods set forth by the Special Master in this case in his Report to this Court dated December 5, 1960, and by applying the unit diversion quantities thereto, as listed below:

                                                  Unit Diversion
                                                Quantity Acre-Feet
   Indian Reservation                           Per Irrigable Acre
   __________________                          ____________________
       Cocopah                                          6.37
       Colorado River                                   6.67
       Chemehuevi                                       5.97
       Ft. Mojave                                       6.46
       Ft. Yuma                                         6.67

The foregoing reference to a quantity of water necessary to supply consumptive use required for irrigation, and as that provision is included within paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II (D) of said Decree, shall constitute the means of determining quantity of adjudicated water rights but shall not constitute a restriction of the usage of them to irrigation or other agricultural application. If all or part of the adjudicated water rights of any of the five Indian Reservations is used other than for irrigation or other agricultural application, the total consumptive use, as that term is defined in Art. I (A) of said Decree, for said Reservation shall not exceed the consumptive use that would have resulted if the diversions listed in subparagraph (i) of paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art.

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