Arizona v. California, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MARSHALL
PartiesState of ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. State of CALIFORNIA et al. rig
Decision Date09 January 1979
Docket NumberO,No. 8

439 U.S. 419
99 S.Ct. 995
58 L.Ed.2d 627
State of ARIZONA, Plaintiff,

v.

State of CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 8, Orig.

Supreme Court of the United States

January 9, 1979.

Page 420

PER CURIAM and SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE.

The United States of America, Intervenor, State of Arizona, Complainant, the California Defendants (State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, County of San Diego), and State of Nevada, Intervenor, pursuant to Art. VI of the Decree entered in the case on March 9, 1964, at 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757, and amended on February 28, 1966, at 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743, have agreed to the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State and their priority dates as set forth herein. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the joint motion of the United States, the State of Arizona, the California Defendants, and the State of Nevada to enter a supplement decree is granted and that said present

Page 421

perfected rights in each State and their priority dates are determined to be as set forth below, subject to the following:

(1) The following listed present perfected rights relate to the quantity of water which may be used by each claimant and the list is not intended to limit or redefine the type of use otherwise set forth in said Decree.

(2) This determination shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determinations relating to settlement of Indian reservation boundaries referred to in Art. II(D)(5) of said Decree.

(3) Article IX of said Decree is not affected by this
list of present perfected rights.

(4) Any water right listed herein may be exercised only for beneficial uses.

(5) In the event of a determination of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy present perfected rights pursuant to Art. II(B)(3) of said Decree, the Secretary of the Interior shall, before providing for the satisfaction of any of the other present perfected rights except for those listed herein as "MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS" (rights numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) in the order of their priority dates without regard to State lines, first provide for the satisfaction in full of all rights of the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, Cocopah Indian Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation as set forth in Art. II(D)(1)-(5) of said Decree, provided that the quantities fixed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II(D) of said Decree shall continue to be subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined. Additional present perfected rights so adjudicated by such adjustment shall be in annual quantities not to exceed the quantities of mainstream water necessary to

Page 422

supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of the practicably irrigable acres which are included within any area determined to be within a reservation by such final determination of a boundary and for the satisfaction of related uses. The quantities of diversions are to be computed by determining net practicably irrigable acres within each additional area using the methods set forth by the Special Master in this case in his Report to this Court dated December 5, 1960, and by applying the unit diversion quantities thereto, as listed below:

Unit Diversion
Quantity Acre-Feet

Indian Reservation Per Irrigable Acre

Cocopah 6.37

Colorado River 6.67

Chemehuevi 5.97

Ft. Mojave 6.46

Ft. Yuma 6.67

The foregoing reference to a quantity of water necessary to supply consumptive use required for irrigation, and as that provision is included within paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II(D) of said Decree, shall constitute the means of determining quantity of adjudicated water rights but shall not constitute a restriction of the usage of them to irrigation or other agricultural application. If all or part of the adjudicated water rights of any of the five Indian Reservations is used other than for irrigation or other agricultural application, the total consumptive use, as that term is defined in Art. I(A) of said Decree, for said Reservation shall not exceed the consumptive use that would have resulted if the diversions listed in subparagraph (i) of paragraphs (1) through (5) of Art. II(D) of said Decree and the equivalent portions of any supplement thereto had been used for irrigation of the number of acres specified for that Reservation in said paragraphs and supplement and

Page 423

for the satisfaction of related uses. Effect shall be given to this paragraph notwithstanding the priority dates of the present perfected rights as listed below. However, nothing in this paragraph (5) shall affect the order in which such rights listed below as "MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS" (numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) shall be satisfied. Furthermore, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to determine the order of satisfying any other Indian water rights claims not herein specified.

Table
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, such rights having been decreed in Art. II:

Annual

Diversions Net Priority

Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) 5 Acres 5 Date

1) Cocopah Indian Reservation 2744 431 Sept. 27, 1917

2) Colorado River Indian 358,400 53,768 Mar. 3, 1865

Reservation

252,016 37308 Nov. 22, 1873

51,986 7,79 Nov. 16, 1874

3) Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 68,447 10,589 Feb. 2, 1911

B. Water Projects' Present Perfected Rights

(4) The Valley Division, Yuma Project in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 254,200 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of

Page 424

43,562 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of 1901.

(5) The Yuma Auxiliary Project, Unit B in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 6,800 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,225 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8, 1905.

(6) The North Gila Valley Unit, Yuma Mesa Division, Gila Project in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 24,500 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 4,030 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of July 8, 1905.

C. Miscellaneous Present Perfected Rights

1. The following miscellaneous present perfected rights in Arizona in annual quantities of water not to exceed the listed acre-feet of diversion from the mainstream to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation and the satisfaction of related uses within the boundaries of the land described and with the priority dates listed:

Annual
Diversions Priority

Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Date

----------------- -----------

7)

160 acres in Lots 21, 24, 25, Sec. 29 and 960 1915

Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18, and the SW1/4 of the

SE1/4, Sec. 30, T.16S., R22E., San Bernardino

Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona.(Powers)2

8)

Lots 11, 12, 13 19, 20, 22, and S1/2 of SW1/4, 1,140 1915

Sec. 30, T.16S., R22E., San Berardino Base

and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona. (United States) 3

NOTE: Footnotes to table items 7 through 25 are on p. 428

Page 425

Annual
Diversions Priority

Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Date

---------------- -----------

9)

60 acres within Lot2, Sec. 15 and Lots 1 and 2, 360 1902

Sec. 22 T.10N., R.19W, G&SRBM. (Graham) 2

10)

180 acres within the N1/2 of the S1/2 and the

S1/2 of the N1/2 of Sec. 13 and the SW1/4 of the 1,080 1902

NE1/4 of Sec. 14, T.18., R.22W., G&SRBM.(Hulet)2

11)

45 acres within the NE1/4 of the SW1/14, the

SW1/4 of theSW1/4 and the SE1/4 of the

SW1/4 of sec. 11, T.18N., R.22W., G&SRBM.

80 acres within the n1/2 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 1,050 1902

11.T.18N.,r22W.,G&SRBM.

10 acres within the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 of

Sec. 15, T.18N., R.22W., G & SRBM.

40 acres within the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 15,

T.18N., R.22W., G & SRBM. (Hurschler) 2

12) 40 acres within Sec. 13, T.17N., R.22W., G & SRBM. 240 1902

(Miller) 2

13) 120 acres within Sec. 27, T.18N., R.21W., G & SRBM.

15 acres within the NW1/4 of the NW1/4, Sec. 23, 810 1902

T.18N., R.22W., G & SRBM. (McKellips and Granite Reef

Farms) 4

14) 180 acres within the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the 1,080 1902

SW1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the SW1/4, the

NW1/4 of the SE1/4, the NE1/4 of the SE1/4, and

the SW1/4 of the SE1/4, and the

SE1/4 of the SE1/4, Sec. 31, T.18N., R.21W., G & SRBM.

(Sherrill & Lafollette) 4

Page 426

Annual
Diversions Priority

Defined Area of Land (acre-feet) Date

--------------- -----------

15) 53.89 acres as follows: 318 1928

Beginning at a point 995.1 feet easterly of the

NW corner of the NE1/4 of Sec. 10, T.8S.,

R.22W., Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian;

on the northerly boundary of the said NE1/4,

which is the true point of beginning, then

in a southerly direction to a point on the

southerly boundary of the said NE1/4 which is

991.2 feet E. of the SW corner of said NE1/4

thence easterly along the S. line of the NE1/4,

a distance of 807.3 feet to a point, thence N.

0x7' W., 768.8 feet to a point, thence E.

124.0 feet to a point,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region, No. A124351.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2010
    ...340 [11 L.Ed.2d 757, 84 S.Ct. 755]; Arizona v. California (1966) 383 U.S. 268 [15 L.Ed.2d 743, 86 S.Ct. 924]; Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419 [58 L.Ed.2d 627, 99 S.Ct. 995]; Arizona v. California (1983) 460 U.S. 605 [75 L.Ed.2d 318, 103 S.Ct. 1382]; Arizona v. California (1984) 46......
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., D072850
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 2020
    ...the Project Act. ( Ibid. ) In 1979, the Court entered a decree setting forth the present perfected rights. ( Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419, 99 S.Ct. 995, 58 L.Ed.2d 627 ( Arizona III ).) The decree stated that the District had present perfected rights in "annual quantities not t......
  • State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States, NO. A-1-CA-33535
    • United States
    • April 3, 2018
    ...the tribes with water in quantities sufficient to promote survival and the success of the reservations. See Arizona v. California , 439 U.S. 419, 422–23, 99 S.Ct. 995, 58 L.Ed.2d 627 (1979) (per curiam), amended , 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) ; Agua Caliente Band of C......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...in 1979 and 1984 . . . and, most recently, . . . in 2006." Id. (citing Arizona v. California, 466 U.S. 144 (1984); Arizona v. California, 439 U.S. 419 (1979) (per curiam); Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150, 157 (2006)). In the Tribe's view — onePage 33 that we reject as a matter of law (s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region, No. A124351.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2010
    ...340 [11 L.Ed.2d 757, 84 S.Ct. 755]; Arizona v. California (1966) 383 U.S. 268 [15 L.Ed.2d 743, 86 S.Ct. 924]; Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419 [58 L.Ed.2d 627, 99 S.Ct. 995]; Arizona v. California (1983) 460 U.S. 605 [75 L.Ed.2d 318, 103 S.Ct. 1382]; Arizona v. California (1984) 46......
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., D072850
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 2020
    ...the Project Act. ( Ibid. ) In 1979, the Court entered a decree setting forth the present perfected rights. ( Arizona v. California (1979) 439 U.S. 419, 99 S.Ct. 995, 58 L.Ed.2d 627 ( Arizona III ).) The decree stated that the District had present perfected rights in "annual quantities not t......
  • State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States, NO. A-1-CA-33535
    • United States
    • April 3, 2018
    ...the tribes with water in quantities sufficient to promote survival and the success of the reservations. See Arizona v. California , 439 U.S. 419, 422–23, 99 S.Ct. 995, 58 L.Ed.2d 627 (1979) (per curiam), amended , 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) ; Agua Caliente Band of C......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...in 1979 and 1984 . . . and, most recently, . . . in 2006." Id. (citing Arizona v. California, 466 U.S. 144 (1984); Arizona v. California, 439 U.S. 419 (1979) (per curiam); Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150, 157 (2006)). In the Tribe's view — onePage 33 that we reject as a matter of law (s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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