The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and it's Effect on California's Water Supply

Document: The Supreme Court's Decision in Arizona v. California and its effect on California's water supply, Northcutt Ely, July 12, 1963, page 7purposes, upon the Court's reversal of its holding that the tributaries are to be excluded from the calculation of the lower basin's total supply. But it must be recognized that even if California prevails upon a petition for rehearing on this issue, our half of the "excess," according to present estimates of the water supply, will nevertheless fail to furnish an additional dependable supply of anything like the million acre-feet above 4.4 million that California's Colorado River projects were built to use. A deficiency problem will thus remain even if no Central Arizona Project is built. It will be accelerated and deepened, of course, if a Central Arizona Project is constructed. For my part, I therefore endorse the position of Governor Brown and his administration that if federal assistance for the relief of water shortages in Arizona is to be authorized, then, on the same grounds, federal assistance is justified for the relief of water shortages in California, preferably by acceleration of the State Water Plan. But let me say again that all such discussions must be conducted upon the premise that the Supreme Court decision will not be final until the Court rules on a petition for rehearing and the decree is thereafter settled. Moreover, it must be plainly understood that this relates to the furnishing of water in addition to, and not in substitution for any part of, the 4.4 million acre-feet per year from the Colorado River to which the priorities of California's three Colorado River projects relate, and California's half of whatever excess may be physically available. Finally, I will repeat what I have said before: First, that I take the responsibility for the result in this case to date. I had charge of it as chief counsel for the California defendants, and argued it twice before the Supreme Court. Second, no lawyer could have had more loyal support than I have had from Attorney General Stanley Mosk and his predecessor, Pat Brown, from the Colorado River Board, of which M. J. Dowd is chairman, and from the Boards of Directors of California's Colorado River projects. Third, no lawyer was ever furnished a finer staff, headed by Assistant Attorney General Charles E. Corker, or had better cooperation from his colleagues, counsel for all the California defendants. Such prospects of ultimate success as now remain to us are substantial indeed if they are resolutely pursued. California has a just cause; it has been maintained with stout heart by men proud of California's Colorado River heritage; and it will be defended that way to the end of the road if I have anything to say about it. * * *Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,563,463 byte