ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustia & Oyez
Citation531 U.S. 1
Decision Date03 June 1963

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 2000

Syllabus

ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.

ON BILL OF COMPLAINT

No.8, Orig. Decided June 3, 1963-Decree entered March 9, 1964Amended decree entered February 28, 1966-Decided and supplemental decree entered January 9, 1979-Decided March


30, 1983-Second supplemental decree entered April

16, 1984-Decided June 19, 2000-Supplemental

decree entered October 10, 2000

Supplemental decree entered.

Opinion reported: 373 U. S. 546; decree reported: 376 U. S. 340; amended decree reported: 383 U. S. 268; opinion and supplemental decree reported: 439 U. S. 419; opinion reported: 460 U. S. 605, second supplemental decree reported: 466 U. S. 144; opinion reported: 530 U. S. 392.

The Special Master has submitted a proposed supplemental decree in this case to carry the parties' accords into effect. The proposed decree was reproduced as an appendix to the Court's opinion dated June 19, 2000 (530 U. S. 392, 420), and any objections were called for. No objections were filed with the Clerk. Accordingly, the proposed supplemental decree with respect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Reservations is approved and entered.


2

Supplemental Decree

SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

A. Paragraph (4) of Article II(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 344-345) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(4) The Colorado River Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 719,248 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 107,903 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of March 3, 1865, for lands reserved by the Act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 541, 559); November 22, 1873, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 16, 1874, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date, except as later modified; May 15, 1876, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 22, 1915, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date.

B Paragraph (5) of Article II(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 345) and supplemented on April 16, 1984 (466 U. S. 144, 145) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 132,789 acre-feet of diversions from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Water Wars: Solving Interstate Water Disputes Through Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 47-11, November 2017
    • November 1, 2017
    ...cases/lorida-v-georgia-2/ (last visited Oct. 5, 2017). 62. Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 392, 30 ELR 20666, supplemented , 531 U.S. 1 (2000). River since 1901. 63 hus, the Supreme Court relies heavily on special masters to lighten the Court’s workload, already burdened by appellate c......
  • New York v. Jewell, 6:08-CV-0644 (LEK/DEP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • March 4, 2014
    ...Agreement. It cannot be invoked to bar the SMC from pursuing its land claim. See Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414, supplemented, 531 U.S. 1 (2000) ("[C]onsent agreements ordinarily are intended to precludePage 20any further litigation on the claim presented but are not intended to p......
  • Williams v. Arizona, No. CV-17-03390-PHX-DJH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 17, 2018
    ...of the decrees previously entered in that 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). Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006) ("2006 Consolidated Decree"). The U.S. Supreme Court has retained jurisdiction over Arizo......
  • Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corp., Civil Action 21-929 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...where “a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented.” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412, supplemented, 531 U.S. 1 (2000) (quotations omitted). Both the present action and the Doe litigation named additional defendants who have not filed an answer or 12(b) m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • New York v. Jewell, 6:08-CV-0644 (LEK/DEP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • March 4, 2014
    ...Agreement. It cannot be invoked to bar the SMC from pursuing its land claim. See Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414, supplemented, 531 U.S. 1 (2000) ("[C]onsent agreements ordinarily are intended to precludePage 20any further litigation on the claim presented but are not intended to p......
  • Williams v. Arizona, No. CV-17-03390-PHX-DJH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • December 17, 2018
    ...of the decrees previously entered in that 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). Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006) ("2006 Consolidated Decree"). The U.S. Supreme Court has retained jurisdiction over Arizo......
  • Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corp., Civil Action 21-929 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 16, 2022
    ...where “a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented.” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412, supplemented, 531 U.S. 1 (2000) (quotations omitted). Both the present action and the Doe litigation named additional defendants who have not filed an answer or 12(b) m......
  • Arizona v. California, No. 8, Orig.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2000
    ...460 U. S. 605; second supplemental decree reported: 466 U. S. 144; opinion reported: 530 U. S. 392; supplemental decree reported: 531 U. S. 1. The final settlement agreements are approved, the joint motion for entry of decree is granted, and the proposed consolidated decree is entered. Fran......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Water Wars: Solving Interstate Water Disputes Through Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 47-11, November 2017
    • November 1, 2017
    ...cases/lorida-v-georgia-2/ (last visited Oct. 5, 2017). 62. Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 392, 30 ELR 20666, supplemented , 531 U.S. 1 (2000). River since 1901. 63 hus, the Supreme Court relies heavily on special masters to lighten the Court’s workload, already burdened by appellate c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT