Colorado Water Congress Newsletter

Document: Colorado Water Congress Newsletter, June 25, 1963, page 8-8- Arizona based its claim on the doctrine of equitable apportionment as outlined in the Project act. California based its claim on the doctrine of prior appropriation. The trial lasted until August, 1958. In May, 1960, Master Rifkind submitted his findings and recommended decree in a 433-page report to the Supreme Court. Rifkind fooled the crystalballers and ruled against California. He gave Arizona and the U.S. virtually everything they wanted. He apportioned Colorado River water among lower basin states without regard to interstate priorities: 4.4 million acre feet to California, 2.8 to Arizona, 0.3 to Nevada, with shortages shared on a pro rata basis. News of Rifkind's report burst over Southern California like an unexpected nuclear blast. There was shocked disbelief, bitter disappointment, outcries of "dire consequences" agonizing reappraisals of monies spent and commitments made. In Arizona: Bright sunshine, peace and understanding, green light visions of a start on the long-delayed, billion dollar Central Arizona Project. Northcutt Ely struggled and fought for Southern California's lifeblood before the Supreme Court in subsequent briefs and oral arguments. But most observers did not expect the high court to make more than token changes in its special Master's recommendations. On June 3, 1963, the Supreme Court announced its decision in a 52-page opinion written by Justice Black. It upheld Rifkind's water apportionment, but it tossed Rifkind's shortage sharing idea out the window and gave, instead, full authority to the Secretary of Interior.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,881,445 byte