ARIZONA
v.
CALIFORNIA ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court approved and entered the Special Master's proposed supplemental decree, carrying into effect the parties' accords regarding water rights for the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Reservations.
The Special Master submitted a proposed supplemental decree to finalize agreements between parties concerning water rights for two Indian Reservations…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supplemental Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The Special Master has submitted a proposed supplemental decree in this case to carry the parties’ accords into effect. The proposed decree was reproduced as an appendix to the Court’s opinion dated June 19, 2000 (530 U. S. 392, 420), and any objections were called for. No objections were filed with the Clerk. Accordingly, the proposed supplemental decree with respect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Reservations is approved and entered. SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
A. Paragraph (4) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 344-345) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(4) The Colorado River Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 719,248 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of maim stream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 107,903 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of March 3,1865, for lands reserved by the Act of March 3,1865 (13 Stat. 541, 559); November 22,1873, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 16, 1874, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date, except as later modified; May 15, 1876, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 22, 1915, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date.
B. Paragraph (5) of Article 11(D) of the Decree in this case entered on March 9, 1964 (376 U. S. 340, 345) and supplemented on April 16, 1984 (466 U. S. 144, 145) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 132,789 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,544 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 19, 1890, for lands transferred by the Executive Order of said date; February 2, 1911, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date. C. Paragraph (5) of the introductory conditions to the Supplemental Decree in this case entered on January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 421-423), is hereby amended by adding the following exception at the end of the concluding proviso in the first sentence of that paragraph: “except for the western boundaries of the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations in California.”
D. Paragraph II(A)(24) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is hereby amended to read as follows:
(24)
Colorado River Indian Reservation 10,745 1,612 Nov. 22,1873
40,241 6,037 Nov. 16,1874
5,860 879 May 15,1876
E. Paragraph II(A)(25) of the Decree of January 9, 1979 (439 U. S. 419, 428), is hereby amended to read as follows:
(25)
Fort Mojave Indian Reservation 16,720 2,587 Sept. 18,1890
F. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Decree entered on March 9, 1964, and the Supplemental Decrees entered on January 9, 1979, and April 16, 1984, shall remain in full force and effect. •
G. The Court shall retain jurisdiction herein to order such further proceedings and enter such supplemental decree as may be deemed appropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2023)…jo's behalf; the Navajo never received an opportunity to assert them for themselves. Since 1964, the decree governing the Lower Basin has been modifed at various points. See, e. g., Arizona v. California, 547 U. S. 150 (2006); Arizona v. California, 531 U. S. 1 (2000); Arizona v. California, 466 U. S. 144 (1984). But it has never been modifed to address the Navajo. In the intervening years, the Navajo have asked the federal government—repeatedly—to assess their rights in the mainstream of the Colorado. Ap…
-
Arizona v. California, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2703 (U.S. 1963)…spect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations and remanding the case to the Special Master with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. 530 U. S. 392, 418, 419-420. On October 10, 2000, the Court entered a supplemental decree. 531 U. S. 1. On June 14, 2005, Special Master McGarr submitted his report recommending approval of the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and a proposed supplemental decree to implement those…1 / 2
-
BC Power, Inc. v. Stuart C. Irby Co. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…disposition of a case on summary judgment grounds represents a final 4Under res judicata principles, “consent judgments ordinarily support claim preclusion but not issue preclusion.” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414 (2000), supplemented, 531 U.S. 1 (2000) (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4443, pp. 384–385 (1981)). adjudication on the merits’ and ‘forecloses subsequent litigation on the matter.’ Griffith v. Wain…
Authorities Cited
- Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1963)
- Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (U.S. 2000)
- Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1963)
- Arizona v. California, 466 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1984)