Arizona v. California

466 U.S. 144, 104 S. Ct. 1900, 80 L. Ed. 2d 194, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 225, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 16, 1984
Docket8 ORIG
StatusPublished
Cited by71 cases

This text of 466 U.S. 144 (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, 466 U.S. 144, 104 S. Ct. 1900, 80 L. Ed. 2d 194, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 225, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751 (1984).

Opinion

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE.

The Court having, on March 30, 1983, rendered its decision on the several Exceptions to the Final Report of the Special Master herein, approving the recommendation that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Quechan Indian Tribe, and the Cocopah Indian Tribe be permitted to intervene, approving some of his further recommendations and disapproving others, all as specified in this Court’s opinion, 460 U. S. 605 (1983), the following supplemental decree is now entered to implement the decision of March 30, 1983.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

A. Paragraphs (2) and (5) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 344-345), are hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) The Cocopah Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 9,707 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,524 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 27,1917, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; June 24, 1974, for lands reserved by the Act of June 24, 1974 (88 Stat. 266, 269);
*145 (5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 129,767 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,076 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 19, 1890, for lands transferred by the Executive Order of said date; February 2,1911, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; provided that the quantities fixed in this paragraph, and in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be subject to appropriate adjustments by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined.

B. Paragraph 1(A) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 423) is hereby amended to read as follows:

I

ARIZONA

A. Federal Establishments’ Present Perfected Rights The federal establishments named in Art. II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of the Decree entered March 9, 1964, in this case:

Annual
Defined Area Diversions Net
of Land(Acre-Feet) * Acres * Priority Date
1) Cocopah Indian Reservation 7,681 1,206 Sept. 27, 1917
2) Colorado 358,400 53,768 Mar. 3, 1865
River Indian 252,016 37,808 Nov. 22, 1873
Reservation 51,986 7,799 Nov. 16, 1874
8) Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 27,969 4,327 Sept. 18, 1890 75,566 11,691 Feb. 2, 1911

*146 C. In addition to the mainstream diversion rights in favor of the Indian Reservations specified in Paragraph 1(A) of the Decree of January 9, 1979, as amended by Paragraph B of this decree, a mainstream diversion right of 2,026 acre-feet for the Cocopah Reservation shall be charged against the State of Arizona with a priority date of June 24, 1974.

D. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Decree entered on March 9, 1964, and the Supplemental Decree entered on January 9, 1979, shall remain in full force and effect.

E. The allocation of costs previously made by the Special Master is approved and no further costs shall be taxed in this Court, absent further proceedings after entry of this Decree.

F. The Special Master appointed by the Court is discharged with the thanks of the Court.

G. The Court shall retain jurisdiction herein to order such further proceedings and enter such supplemental decree as may be deemed appropriate.

Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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

Related

Koger v. Usoroh
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States
136 F.4th 1066 (Federal Circuit, 2025)
Target Corporation v. United States
134 F.4th 1307 (Federal Circuit, 2025)
United States v. Michigan
131 F.4th 409 (Sixth Circuit, 2025)
Alexander v. Lewis
D. Connecticut, 2024
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist.
542 P.3d 411 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2024)
In re: Rosa Fridman
Ninth Circuit, 2023
Boyd v. Hughes
N.D. Mississippi, 2023
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
599 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 2023)
Boyd v. S&S Management Group, LLC
N.D. Mississippi, 2023
Boyd v. Sutton
N.D. Mississippi, 2023
Ruberti v. Ethicon, Inc.
M.D. Alabama, 2023
Woody Partners v. Pirchesky
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2022
Haddock v. United States
Federal Claims, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
466 U.S. 144, 104 S. Ct. 1900, 80 L. Ed. 2d 194, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 225, 52 U.S.L.W. 3751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizona-v-california-scotus-1984.