Arizona v. California

PETITIONER: Arizona
RESPONDENT: California et al.
LOCATION: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

DOCKET NO.: 8 ORIG
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 373 US 546 (1963)
ARGUED: Jan 08, 1962 / Jan 09, 1962 / Jan 10, 1962 / Jan 11, 1962
REARGUED: Nov 13, 1962 / Nov 14, 1962
DECIDED: Jun 03, 1963

ADVOCATES:
Archibald Cox - Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued and reargued as the intervener, United States
Dennis McCarthy - argued for impleded defendant, State of Utah
Earl E. Hartley - argued for impleded defendant, State of New Mexico
Mark Wilmer - argued and reargued for the complainant, State of Arizona
Northcutt Ely - argued and reargued for defendant, State of California
R. P. Parry - argued and reargued for intervener, State of Nevada
Stanley Mosk - for defendant, State of California

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Arizona v. California

Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - November 13, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - November 14, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - November 14, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 08, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 10, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 08, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Reargument - November 13, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 10, 1962 (Part 2) in Arizona v. California

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1962 (Part 1) in Arizona v. California

Northcutt Ely:

I find on a review of yesterday's proceedings that the points that I had intended to return to this morning have been enlarged part -- anticipated by corrections from the bench.

And I shall -- consequently this morning simply identify for you the places in our reply brief where the material is found which I referred yesterday, invite your attention to it and reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal unless there are questions this morning.

The reply brief was follow -- was filed October 2, 1961.

The limitation issue is found beginning at Page 19.

It is captioned, “The legislative history of the Project Act does not support severance of the Colorado River Compact from the California Limitation Agreement”.

The priority issue is covered beginning at Page 34 and it is captioned, “The priorities of California's established projects up to 4,400,000 acre-feet annually should be protected from impairment by new projects in Arizona and Nevada”.

The water supply or justiciability issue is covered beginning at Page 98.

And if this caption -- if the conclusion is reached by the Special Master as urged by the other parties are correct, this controversy is not justiciable.

It goes on to say, however, that upon our premises, this controversy is justiciable.

And may I invite your attention also to the preliminary material which begins at Page 1 which is captioned, “The basic controversy”.

And here, we attempt to sum up the impact of these three issues.

The limitation or severance issue, as we sometimes call it, the priority issue and the jurisdictional water supply issue as compared with California's claims and the impact, the effect of the Colorado River Compact.

And now may it please --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

I agree.

Northcutt Ely:

In our reply brief of October 2, 1961.

That brief in turn gives cross references to the more detailed treatment of these materials in our earlier briefs and also a cross references to what our opponents would have to say about them up to that time.

And so now if may it please the Court, I -- unless there are questions, I shall reserve the balance of my time.

Hugo L. Black:

Mr. Wilmer.

Mark Wilmer:

May it please the Court.

Arizona's case brief itself naturally into two parts.

The first being the controversy between the states over the Colorado River, the interstate controversy mainly Arizona versus California in that we are supported largely in the Master's -- in upholding the Master's Report by United States and by Nevada.

The second portion of the controversy which is really almost a separate controversy involves the dispute between Arizona mainly and the United States with respect to the claims of the United States for federal establishments mainly the reservations on the Colorado River, the Indian Reservations.

Because of that of the fact that in one sense we are appellee here insofar as California is concerned and that we mainly support the Master's Report, we have yielded to California our plaintiff's position to open.

However, with respect to the United States in effect, we are the appellant.

And therefore, with the Court's permission, we propose to divide our argument as I've indicated.

I will discuss the Arizona position and the reasons why we believe the Master's Report fundamentally is sound.

And Mr. Reed, in turn, will discuss with you Arizona's views with respect to the apportionment made to the federal establishments and particularly, the Indian Reservations.

I expect to use approximately four hours of our allotted time and Mr. Reed approximately an hour and a half.

Please the Court, some 36 years ago, Justice Holmes in an opinion written for this Court in Sanitary District of Chicago versus the United States could very well have been using language which we think appropriate to this case.

He first discussed the great issues involved, the claims of the Sanitary District of Chicago as to the vast amounts of money which had been expended.