Arizona v. California

547 U.S. 150, 126 S. Ct. 1543, 164 L. Ed. 2d 271, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 27, 2006
Docket8 ORIG
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 547 U.S. 150 (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, 547 U.S. 150, 126 S. Ct. 1543, 164 L. Ed. 2d 271, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703 (2006).

Opinion

CONSOLIDATED DECREE

On January 19, 1953, the Court granted the State of Arizona leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of California and seven of its public agencies, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. 344 U. S. 919. The United States and the State of Nevada intervened. 344 U. S. 919 (1953) (intervention by the United States); 347 U. S. 985 (1954) (intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties. 350 U. S. 114, 115 (1955). The Court referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death to Simon H. Rif kind, Esquire, as Special Master. 347 U. S. 986 (1954); 350 U. S. *151 812 (1955). On January 16, 1961, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Rifkind. 364 U. S. 940. On June 3,1963, the Court filed an opinion in the case, 373 U. S. 546, and on March 9, 1964, the Court entered a decree in the case. 376 U. S. 340.

On February 28,1966, the Court granted the joint motion of the parties to amend Article VI of the decree, and so amended Article VI to extend the time for submission of lists of present perfected rights. 383 U. S. 268.

On January 9,1979, the Court filed an opinion granting the joint motion for entry of a supplemental decree, entered a supplemental decree, denied in part the motion to intervene of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and otherwise referred the case and the motions to intervene of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes, et al., to Judge Elbert Tuttle as Special Master. 439 U. S. 419, 437. On April 5,1982, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Tuttle. 456 U. S. 912. On March 30, 1983, the Court filed an opinion rendering a decision on the several exceptions to the report of the Special Master, approving the recommendation that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Quechan Tribe, and the Cocopah Indian Tribe be permitted to intervene, and approving some of his further recommendations and disapproving others, 460 U. S. 605, 609, 615. On April 16, 1984, the Court entered a second supplemental decree implementing that decision. 466 U. S. 144.

On October 10, 1989, the Court granted the motion of the state parties to reopen the decree to determine the disputed boundary claims with respect to the Fort Mojave, Colorado River, and Fort Yuma Indian Reservations. 493 U. S. 886. The case was referred to Robert B. McKay, Esquire, and upon his death to Frank McGarr, Esquire, as Special Master. 493 U. S. 971 (1989); 498 U. S. 964 (1990). On October 4, 1999, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master McGarr. 528 U. S. 803. On June 19, 2000, the Court filed an opinion rendering a decision on the several *152 exceptions to the report of the Special Master, approving the settlements of the parties with respect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations and remanding the case to the Special Master with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. 530 U. S. 392, 418, 419-420. On October 10, 2000, the Court entered a supplemental decree. 531 U. S. 1.

On June 14, 2005, Special Master McGarr submitted his report recommending approval of the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and a proposed supplemental decree to implement those settlements.

The State of Arizona, the State of California, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, the United States, and the Quechan Tribe, at the direction of the Court, have filed a joint motion to enter a consolidated decree.

This decree consolidates the substantive provisions of the decrees previously entered in this action at 376 U. S. 340 (1964), 383 U. S. 268 (1966), 439 U. S. 419 (1979), 466 U. S. 144 (1984), and 531 U. S. 1 (2000), implements the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim for the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, which the Court has approved this date, and reflects changes in the names of certain parties and Indian reservations. This decree is entered in order to provide a single convenient reference to ascertain the rights and obligations of the parties adjudicated in this original proceeding, and reflects only the incremental changes in the original 1964 decree by subsequent decrees and the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim for the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED

Except where the text of this decree differs from the previous decrees, this decree does not vacate the previous de *153 crees nor alter any of their substantive provisions, and all mandates, injunctions, obligations, privileges, and requirements of this decree are deemed to remain effective as of the date of their respective entry in the prior decrees. Entry of this decree shall not affect the validity or effect of, nor affect any right or obligation under, any existing statute, regulation, policy, administrative order, contract, or judicial decision or judgment in other actions that references any of the previous decrees, and any such reference shall be construed as a reference to the congruent provisions of this decree.

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;

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)
Arizona v. Navajo Nation
599 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 2023)
Navajo Nation v. DOI
D. Arizona, 2019
Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior
876 F.3d 1144 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Consejo De Desarrollo Economico De Mexicali, A.C. Citizens United for Resources and the Environment, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution, State of California Band of Mission Indians, Intervenors v. United States of America Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Department of the Interior Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation United States of America, Imperial Irrigation District San Diego County Water Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District State of Nevada Southern Nevada Water Authority State of Arizona Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Western Urban Water Coalition, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees v. City of Calexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor. Consejo De Desarrollo Economico De Mexicali, A.C. Citizens United for Resources and the Environment, State of California Band of Mission Indians, Intervenors, and Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. United States of America Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Department of the Interior Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation United States of America Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary William E. Rinne, Acting Commissioner, State of Arizona Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Western Urban Water Coalition Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees, and Imperial Irrigation District San Diego County Water Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District State of Nevada Southern Nevada Water Authority Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Defendant-Intervenors v. City of Calexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor. Consejo De Desarrollo Economico De Mexicali, A.C. Citizens United for Resources and the Environment Desert Citizens Against Pollution, State of California Band of Mission Indians, Intervenors v. United States of America Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Department of the Interior Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation United States of America Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary William E. Rinne, Acting Commissioner, and Imperial Irrigation District San Diego County Water Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District State of Nevada Southern Nevada Water Authority State of Arizona Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Western Urban Water Coalition Colorado River Commission of Nevada Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Defendant-Intervenors v. City of Calexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant
482 F.3d 1157 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Lee Ronald Stevenson
396 F.3d 538 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
Maryland National Bank v. Comptroller of the Treasury
287 A.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
547 U.S. 150, 126 S. Ct. 1543, 164 L. Ed. 2d 271, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizona-v-california-scotus-2006.