State of Arizona v. State of California, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS; HARLAN
Citation84 S.Ct. 755,11 L.Ed.2d 757,376 U.S. 340
PartiesSTATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants. riginal
Docket NumberO,No. 8
Decision Date09 March 1964

376 U.S. 340
84 S.Ct. 755
11 L.Ed.2d 757
STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants.

No. 8, Original.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 9, 1964
DECREE

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that

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

Page 341

(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, m ning, 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

(3) For power;

Provided, however, that the United States may release water in satisfaction of its obligations to the United

Page 342

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 State of Arizona, California and Nevada, except as follows:

(1) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use in the aforesaid three States, then of such 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use, there shall be apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet for use in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre-feet for use in California, and 300,000 acre-feet for use in Nevada;

(2) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use in the aforesaid States in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet, such excess consumptive use is surplus, and 50% thereof shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, however, that if the United States so contracts with Nevada, then 46% of such surplus shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 4% for use in Nevada;

(3) In insufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet in the aforesaid three States, then the Secretary of the Interior, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts and such representatives as the respective States may designate, may apportion the amount remaining available for consumptive use in such manner as is consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by the opinion of this Court herein, and with other applicable federal statutes, but in no event shall more than 4,400,000 acre-feet be

Page 343

apportioned for use in California including all present perfected rights;

(4) Any mainstream water consumptively used within a State shall be charged to its apportionment, regardless of the purpose for which it was released;

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subdivision (B), mainstream water shall be released or delivered to water users (including but not limited to public and municipal corporations and other public agencies) in Arizona, California, and Nevada only pursuant to valid contracts therefor made with such users by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute;

(6) If, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a State will not be consumed in that State, whether for the reason that delivery contracts for the full amount of the State's apportionment are not in effect or that users cannot apply all of such water to beneficial uses, or for any other reason, nothing in this decree shall be construed as rohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from releasing such apportioned but unused water during such year for consumptive use in the other States. No rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof;

(C) From applying the provisions of Article 7(d) of the Arizona water delivery contract dated February 9, 1944, and the provisions of Article 5(a) of the Nevada water delivery contract dated March 30, 1942, as amended by the contract dated January 3, 1944, to reduce the apportionment or delivery of mainstream water to users within the States of Arizona and Nevada by reason of any uses in such States from the tributaries flowing therein;

(D) From releasing water controlled by the United States for use in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada for the benefit of any federal establishment

Page 344

named in this subdivision (D) except in accordance with the allocations made herein; provided, however, that such release may be made notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (5) of subdivision (B) of this Article; and provided further that nothing herein shall prohibit the United States from making future additional reservations of mainstream water for use in any of such States as may be authorized by law and subject to present perfected rights and rights under contracts theretofore made with water users in such State under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute:

(1) The Chemehuevi Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 11,340 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,900 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of February 2, 1907;

(2) The Cocopah Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 2,744 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 431 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of September 27, 1917;

(3) The Yuma Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 51,616 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 7,743 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of January 9, 1884;

(4) The Colorado River Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 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
    ...I ), 373 U.S. 546, 598, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), judgment entered sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter 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 7......
  • 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
    ...558 [80 L.Ed. 1331, 56 S.Ct. 848]; Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546 [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 ......
  • Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases., No. C064293.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2011
    ...Special Master, 373 U.S. 546 [83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542] (1963), and [the Court's] views were carried forward in the decree found at 376 U.S. 340 [84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757] (1964). “[The court] agreed with the Special Master that the allocation of Colorado River water was to be gove......
  • In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases, No. C064293.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2012
    ...Special Master, 373 U.S. 546 [83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542] (1963), and [the Court's] views were carried forward in the decree found at 376 U.S. 340 [84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757] (1964). “[The court] agreed with the Special Master that the allocation of Colorado River water was to be gove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 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
    ...I ), 373 U.S. 546, 598, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963), judgment entered sub nom. Arizona v. California (hereafter 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 7......
  • 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
    ...558 [80 L.Ed. 1331, 56 S.Ct. 848]; Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546 [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 ......
  • Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases., No. C064293.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2011
    ...Special Master, 373 U.S. 546 [83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542] (1963), and [the Court's] views were carried forward in the decree found at 376 U.S. 340 [84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757] (1964). “[The court] agreed with the Special Master that the allocation of Colorado River water was to be gove......
  • In re Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases, No. C064293.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2012
    ...Special Master, 373 U.S. 546 [83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542] (1963), and [the Court's] views were carried forward in the decree found at 376 U.S. 340 [84 S.Ct. 755, 11 L.Ed.2d 757] (1964). “[The court] agreed with the Special Master that the allocation of Colorado River water was to be gove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review Nbr. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...like any other cap on consumptive use. See Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179, 201–02 (1930). 77. See generally Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964); see also Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006) (amending 1964 decree). 78. See New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 483 ......

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