Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Arizona v. California

Arizona v. California

Supreme Court of the United States

March 27, 2006, Decree entered

No. 8, Orig.

Opinion

  [*150]   [***271]   [**1543]  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, 73 S. Ct. 385, 97 L. Ed. 708. The United States and the State of Nevada intervened.  [****2]   344 U.S. 919, 73 S. Ct. 385, 97 L. Ed. 708 (1953) (intervention by the United States);  347 U.S. 985, 74 S. Ct. 848, 98 L. Ed. 1121 (1954) (intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties.  350 U.S. 114, 115, 76 S. Ct. 188, 100 L. Ed. 125 (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, 74 S. Ct. 848, 98 L. Ed. 1121 (1954);  350 U.S. 812,  [*151]  76 S. Ct. 43, 100 L. Ed. 728 (1955). On January 16, 1961, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Rifkind.  364 U.S. 940, 81 S. Ct. 457. On June 3, 1963, the Court filed an opinion in the case,  373 U.S. 546, 83 S. Ct. 1468, 10 L. Ed. 2d 542, and on March 9, 1964, the Court entered a decree in the case.  376 U.S. 340, 84 S. Ct. 755, 11 L. Ed. 2d 757.

On February 28, 1966, the Court granted the joint motion of the parties to amend  [**1544]  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, 86 S. Ct. 924, 15 L. Ed. 2d 743.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

547 U.S. 150 *; 126 S. Ct. 1543 **; 164 L. Ed. 2d 271 ***; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703 ****

STATE OF ARIZONA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Prior History:  [****1] ON BILL OF COMPLAINT

 Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 84 S. Ct. 755, 11 L. Ed. 2d 757, 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2417 (1964) Arizona v. California, 383 U.S. 268, 86 S. Ct. 924, 15 L. Ed. 2d 743, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2995 (1966) Arizona v. California, 466 U.S. 144, 104 S. Ct. 1900, 80 L. Ed. 2d 194, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 225 (1984) Arizona v. California, 531 U.S. 1, 121 S. Ct. 292, 148 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 6841 (2000) Arizona v. California, 439 U.S. 419, 99 S. Ct. 995, 58 L. Ed. 2d 627, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 210 (1979)

CORE TERMS

mainstream, decree, acres, consumptive, rights, Reservation, acre-feet, quantities, diversions, irrigation, annual, perfected, River, satisfaction, water use, diverted, feet, reserved land, purposes, diversion of water, defined area, water rights, establishments, subdivision, tributaries, parties, stream, thence, users, underground water