Arizona v. California, No. 8, Orig.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation547 U.S. 150,164 L. Ed. 2d 271,126 S. Ct. 1543
Docket NumberNo. 8, Orig.
PartiesARIZONA <I>v.</I> CALIFORNIA et al.
Decision Date19 June 2000
547 U.S. 150
126 S. Ct. 1543
164 L. Ed. 2d 271
ARIZONA
v.
CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 8, Orig.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 3, 1963.
Decree entered March 9, 1964.
Amended 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.
Consolidated decree entered March 27, 2006.

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; 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. Frank J. McGarr, Esq., of Downers Grove, Illinois, the Special Master in this case, is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court.

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. Rifkind, Esquire, as Special Master. 347 U. S. 986 (1954); 350 U. S.

547 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

547 U.S. 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 decrees

547 U.S. 153

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;

(D) "Regulatory structures controlled by the United States" refers to Hoover Dam, Davis Dam, Parker Dam, Headgate Rock Dam, Palo Verde Dam, Imperial Dam, Laguna Dam, and all other dams and works on the mainstream now or hereafter controlled or operated by the United States which regulate the flow of water in the mainstream or the diversion of water from the mainstream;

(E) "Water controlled by the United States" refers to the water in Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, and all

547 U.S. 154

other water in the mainstream below Lee Ferry and within the United States;

(F) "Tributaries" means all stream systems the waters of which naturally drain into the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry;

(G) "Perfected right" means a water right acquired in accordance with state law, which right has been exercised by the actual diversion of a specific quantity of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to definite municipal or industrial works, and in addition shall include water rights created by the reservation of mainstream water for the use of federal establishments under federal law whether or not the water has been applied to beneficial use;

(H) "Present perfected rights" means perfected rights, as here defined, existing as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act;

(I) "Domestic use" shall include the use of water for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, and other like purposes, but shall exclude the generation of electrical power;

(J) "Annual" and "Year," except where the context may otherwise require, refer to calendar years;

(K) Consumptive use of water diverted in one State for consumptive use in another State shall be treated as if diverted in the State for whose benefit it is consumed.

II. The United States, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees be and they are hereby severally enjoined:

(A) From operating regulatory structures controlled by the United States and from releasing water controlled by the United States other than in accordance with the following order of priority:

(1) For river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control;

(2) For irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present perfected rights; and

547 U.S. 155

(3) For power;

Provided, however, that the United States may release water in satisfaction of its obligations to the United States of Mexico under the Treaty dated February 3, 1944, without regard to the priorities specified in this subdivision (A);

(B) From releasing water controlled by the United States for irrigation and domestic use in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 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
    ...[147 L.Ed.2d 374, 120 S.Ct. 2304]; Arizona v. California (2000) 531 U.S. 1 [148 L.Ed.2d 1, 121 S.Ct. 292]; Arizona v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 150 [164 L.Ed.2d 271, 126 S.Ct. 1543].) In addition, the source of the Mississippi River is in Minnesota the home state of Justice Blackmun, and t......
  • Navajo Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 14-16864
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 4, 2017
    ...374 (2000) (holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes); Arizona v. California , 547 U.S. 150, 126 S.Ct. 1543, 164 L.Ed.2d 271 (2006) (consolidating prior decrees and implementing the water rights settlement concerning one Indian reserva......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...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 (see infra Section IV.B.) — the government effectuated a taki......
  • Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 11–16326.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 17, 2012
    ...in other Lower Division States as provided in the Consolidated Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 [126 S.Ct. 1543, 164 L.Ed.2d 271] (2006).This description supports the conclusion that the AOP is merely a descriptive tool by which Congres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 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
    ...[147 L.Ed.2d 374, 120 S.Ct. 2304]; Arizona v. California (2000) 531 U.S. 1 [148 L.Ed.2d 1, 121 S.Ct. 292]; Arizona v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 150 [164 L.Ed.2d 271, 126 S.Ct. 1543].) In addition, the source of the Mississippi River is in Minnesota the home state of Justice Blackmun, and t......
  • Navajo Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 14-16864
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 4, 2017
    ...374 (2000) (holding that res judicata did not bar certain claims stemming from reservation boundary disputes); Arizona v. California , 547 U.S. 150, 126 S.Ct. 1543, 164 L.Ed.2d 271 (2006) (consolidating prior decrees and implementing the water rights settlement concerning one Indian reserva......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...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 (see infra Section IV.B.) — the government effectuated a taki......
  • Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 11–16326.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 17, 2012
    ...in other Lower Division States as provided in the Consolidated Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 [126 S.Ct. 1543, 164 L.Ed.2d 271] (2006).This description supports the conclusion that the AOP is merely a descriptive tool by which Congres......
  • 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