Arizona v. California
| Decision Date | 28 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 8,8 |
| Parties | ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al. rig |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mark Wilmer, for plaintiff.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Northcutt Ely, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Burton J. Gindler and David B. Stanton, Deputy Attys. Gen., C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Roy H. Mann, Earl Redwine, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, James H. Carter, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., John H. Lauten, H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Edward T. Butler, Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen. of Nevada, and Robert E. Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Solicitor General Marshall, for the United States.
The joint motion to amend Article VI of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757, is hereby granted and Article VI of said decree is hereby amended to read as follows:
VI. Within three years from the date of this decree [March 9, 1964], the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply simi- lar information, within a similar period of time, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karuk Tribe of Northern California v. California Regional Water Quality Control Bd., North Coast Region, A124351.
...[10 L.Ed.2d 542, 83 S.Ct. 1468]; Arizona v. California (1964) 376 U.S. 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......
-
U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755)
...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter 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 19......
-
U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755)
...Arizona II ), 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter 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 19......
-
Lewis v. Sporck
...n. 85, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), decree entered, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964), amended, Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268, 86 S.Ct. 924, 15 L.Ed.2d 743 (1966). The statement by Senator Tower, which also was not addressed by any of the conferees, is significant because it......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...694 F.2d 1171, 1177 (9th Cir. 1982). (203) Id. at 1178. (204) Id. (205) Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 595-98 (1962), amended by 383 U.S. 268 (1966), order amended by 466 U.S. 144 (206) Benson, supra note 83, at 413-15. (207) Id. at 369 (citing Memorandum from David Nawi & Lynn Pe......