# Exceptions to the Report of the Special Master — Arizona v. California

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0200%3A60

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Exceptions to the Report of the Special Master
- **Published:** January 1, 1962
- **Citation:** 370 U.S. 930

## Text

‘ &
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VA ,
Rha. UREN tne cesnrsiggstnicenndenttintanitlinse somanonsitnbdemiiinbuins oo 2
II. Specification of Errors and Exceptions

RUIIEE DUO TE ccsnicgdacanscncennasacinric S paane nae sci n 5

IE BUI Wiis cinccissicarsedsiaais ininndinsnseitinaasediaiciabsaianueamsanibadinias A

Baccingitiien Be, Bannan sett See iris 6

Exception tees (ishdccihimcnincghasinibiaseteiadgiinveihi a 2

Sicsaiiiians FIA Ti sasinsiscesinionbaiecanbenitninninlvsenbaminanns 7

Exception No. ROOT OSI oa 7

TAG DOI, cascccstsncitecenniaiceceaiincinlcbaiele | 8

ID TO NB csiis caries nisninassassicessnpripiecouaibonlnibiliasipaincaabices 8

SE NRIINEE TOON. Pr oiosiescctserncascsisavlan nesters o

Exception nk RRO cee remnant Meee

EE | ea en anne ee 10

Exception No. 12 | 10

Exception No. 13

ee eeee

10

a.

a+ Fee en

_

Exception No. 10:

(a) The Special Master errs in holding that Ari-
_ zona did effectively ratify the Colorado River Compact
in 1944,%°

(b) The Special Master further errs in holding that
the California Limitation Aet is operative and “binding
-on the State of California, despite his holding that
Arizona effectively ratified the Colorado River Com-
pact in 1944.3" :

33Report, pp. 140-42, 113-15, 147, 149.

34Report, pp. 102-25.

s5Report, pp. 99-102. 7
36Report, pp. 166-67. pers peepygyF * Sy
37Report, pp. 164-66. - : :

| f

>

a
Exception No. 11:

The Special Master errs in holding that the “Con-
tract dated February 9, 1944, between the United States
and the State of Arizona”*® constitutes an apportionment
in perpetuity of use of water of the Colorado River

‘to Arizona by a formula unrelated to water. supply

and on a parity with contracts made in 1930-34 with
users of water from the Colorado River in California.“
\ : 7

7

Exception No. 12:

The Special Master errs in holding that the provi-
sions of the Arizona and the Nevada Coritracts* dim-
inishing deliveries to Arizona and Nevada, : espectively,
of water from Lake Mead in the quantity that upstream
diversions in those states diminish the flow into Lake
Mead, are inyalid.” Paes

Exception No. 13:

The Special Master errs in holding that the ca
tract provisions referred to in Exception 12 are separ-
able and can be invalidated without invalidating the
said contracts in their entirety.” £

Wherefore, the defendant, The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, respectfully requests
that this Court reject the Report of the Special Mas- °

88Ariz. Ex. 32 (Water Delivery Contract between United States
and Arizona, Feb. 9, 1944, Tr.-248) ; Report, p. 399, Appx. 5.

39See note 6, supra.

"Report, pp. 221-37.

*1Report,-p. 399, Appx. 5, Sec. 7(d) ‘at p. 401; seins p.
409, Appx. 6, Sec. 5(a), at p. 410.

“Report, pp. 201 and n, 62; 204-210, 237-47.

‘8Report, pp. 207, 210.

—-il—

‘ter and Recommended Decree on file herein, and that

in any decree entered herein, the right of this defend-
ant to use of water of the Colorado River evidenced

by its water delivery contracts with the United States

and by appropriation under State law, andéstablished

by application of: such water to beneficial use with dili-

gence considered in relation to the magnitude of the
project, be recognized and protected with a priority as
against uses initiated later in time or. not now in ex-
istence, subject to-the Colorado River Compact, the
Boulder Canyon Project Act, and the California Limi-
tation Act if the latter be held to be ‘still operative.

Respectfully submitted,.

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

JAMEs H. Howarp,
_ Special Counsel,

CHarR Es C. Cooper, JR.,
General Counsel,

H. KENNETH HUuTCHINSON,
Deputy General Counsel,

FRANK P. DoHERTY;
Special Counsel,

od

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0200%3A60. Public record. Not legal advice.