Arizona v. California, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation104 S.Ct. 1900,80 L.Ed.2d 194,466 U.S. 144
Docket NumberNo. 8
Decision Date16 April 1984
PartiesState of ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. State of CALIFORNIA et al. Orig

466 U.S. 144
104 S.Ct. 1900
80 L.Ed.2d 194
State of ARIZONA, Plaintiff,

v.

State of CALIFORNIA et al.

No. 8 Orig.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 1984

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

A. Paragraphs (2) and (5) of Article II(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U.S. 340, 344-345, 84 S.Ct. 755, 757-758, 11 L.Ed.2d 757), are hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) The Cocopah Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 9,707 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,524 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 27, 1917, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; June 24, 1974, for lands reserved by the Act of June 24, 1974 (88 Stat. 266, 269);

Page 145

(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 129,767 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,076 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; provided that the quantities fixed in this paragraph, and in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be subject to appropriate adjustments by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined.

B. Paragraph I(A) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U.S. 419, 423, 99 S.Ct. 995, 996, 58 L.Ed.2d 627) is hereby amended to read as follows:

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:

Defined nArea Annual Diversions Net Acres a1 Priority Date

of Land (Acre-Feet) a1

1) Cocopah Indian 7,681 1,206 Sept. 27, 1917

Reservation

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

River Indian 252,016 37,808 Nov. 22, 1873

Reservation 51,986 7,799 Nov. 16, 1874

3) Fort Mojave Indian 27,969 4,327 Sept. 18, 1890

Reservation 75,566 11,691 Feb. 2, 1911

Page 146

C. In addition to the mainstream diversion rights in favor of the Indian...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 practice notes
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) ); Winters, 207 U.S. at 576, 28 S.Ct. 207 ). Intent to reserve water is inferred if the waters are necessa......
  • 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
    ...[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) 466 U.S. 144 [80 L.Ed.2d 194, 104 S.Ct. 1900]; Arizona v. California (2000) 530 U.S. 392 [147 L.Ed.2d 374, 120 S.Ct. 2304]; Arizona v. California (2000) 5......
  • State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States, NO. A-1-CA-33535
    • United States
    • April 3, 2018
    ...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 Cahuilla Indians , 849 F.3d at 1270 ; Joint Bd. of Control of Flathead, Miss......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...orders entered by the Supreme Court 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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
67 cases
  • U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755), Docket Nos. 45381
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 5, 2019
    ...Arizona III ), 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966), and amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter Arizona V ), 466 U.S. 144, 104 S.Ct. 1900, 80 L.Ed.2d 194 (1984) ); Winters, 207 U.S. at 576, 28 S.Ct. 207 ). Intent to reserve water is inferred if the waters are necessa......
  • 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
    ...[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) 466 U.S. 144 [80 L.Ed.2d 194, 104 S.Ct. 1900]; Arizona v. California (2000) 530 U.S. 392 [147 L.Ed.2d 374, 120 S.Ct. 2304]; Arizona v. California (2000) 5......
  • State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States, NO. A-1-CA-33535
    • United States
    • April 3, 2018
    ...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 Cahuilla Indians , 849 F.3d at 1270 ; Joint Bd. of Control of Flathead, Miss......
  • Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 16-492L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 29, 2020
    ...orders entered by the Supreme Court 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 ......
  • 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