State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants : the United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners : State of Utah and State of New Mexico, impleaded defendants : New Mexico's exceptions to the report and recommended decree of the Special Master, dated December 5, 1960.
Case summary: "Arizona v. California was a 12-year epic battle including three years of trial in front of a special master appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial involved 106 witnesses and hundreds of volumes of exhibits, ultimately producing a 433-page final report from the Master in D...
Saved in:
| Summary: | Case summary: "Arizona v. California was a 12-year epic battle including three years of trial in front of a special master appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial involved 106 witnesses and hundreds of volumes of exhibits, ultimately producing a 433-page final report from the Master in December of 1960. Proceedings at the U.S. Supreme Court required two oral arguments, producing a 5-3 decision in 1963 with two dissenting opinions, with the majority opinion implemented by a decree in 1964. The case was an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Arizona seeking to clarify its rights to the use of Colorado River basin water. It was filed 30 years after the seven basin states drafted the Colorado River Compact, which apportioned the waters of the basin roughly equally between the states of the Upper and Lower Divisions, but did not apportion shares to individual states. In addition to Arizona and California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah were party to the case because they had lands located within the Lower Basin. The United States was also party to the case because of the federal water projects and lands located within the Lower Basin. It was perhaps the most high profile water case ever to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and produced considerable commentary."-- Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Arizona v. California Revisited, 52 Nat. Resources J. 363, 365-66 (2012) (quoted with permission of the author) |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Cover title. "No. 9 original." Attorneys listed on cover: State of New Mexico: Earl E. Hartley, Thomas O. Olson, Claude S. Mann, Dudley Cornell. Includes an additional document titled, "Proof of Service." Served by Thomas O. Olson, attorney for the State of New Mexico. Airmailed copies of New Mexico's Exceptions to the report and recommended decree of the Special Master dated December 5, 1960, on February 24, 1961, to the following: Archibald Cox, United States; Hugh A. Shamberger, Nevada; Walter L. Budge, Utah; Simon H. Rifkind, Special Master; Arizona Interstate Stream Commission; Gilbert F. Nelson, Colorado River Litigation; Mr. [James H.] Howard, Metropolitan Water District; Harry W. Horton, Imperial Irrigation District; Gilmore Tillman, City of Los Angeles; J. F. DuPaul, City and County of San Diego; Frank Jenney, Palo Verde Irrigation District; Earl Redwine, Coachella Valley County Water District. |
| Physical Description: | 4 pages ; 24 cm + 1 additional document (3 pages) |
| Preferred Citation of Described Materials Note: | Citation: New Mexico’s Exceptions to the Report and Recommended Decree of the Special Master, Dated December 5, 1960, Arizona v. California, No. 9 Original, 1960 Term (U.S. filed Feb. 25, 1961) Landmark decision citation: Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) |