ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Decision Date03 June 1963
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
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.

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 mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,544 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.

C. Paragraph (5) of the introductory conditions to the Supplemental Decree in this case entered on January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 421-423), is hereby amended by adding the following exception at the end of the concluding proviso in the first sentence of that paragraph: "except for the western boundaries of the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations in California."

D. Paragraph II(A)(24) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is hereby amended to read as follows: (24)

Colorado River Indian Reservation 10,745 1,612 Nov. 22, 1873
40,241 6,037 Nov. 16, 1874
5,860 879 May 15, 1876

E. Paragraph II(A)(25) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • New York v. Jewell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • March 4, 2014
  • Williams v. Arizona
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • December 17, 2018
  • Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 16, 2022
    ... ... In an ... even more analogous situation involving separation of powers ... at the state level, the California legislature retroactively ... extended the statute of limitations for claims “against ... entities ... that employed or ... appropriate 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 ... ...
  • Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • February 16, 2022
    ... ... In an ... even more analogous situation involving separation of powers ... at the state level, the California legislature retroactively ... extended the statute of limitations for claims “against ... entities ... that employed or ... appropriate 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 ... ...
  • 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 No. 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