Political Science Group ProjectCourt Cases About WaterGroup 11November 19, 2001Introduction:Water is a special commodity in our time. There is only a certain amount. Howmuch each state or city receives is of utmost importance. People, governments, statesand corporations have fought over water for over a hundred years, and the fight willcontinue as water becomes in even greater demand. The issues over water vary. Doesthe state or the federal government have first priority over water? If one river is sharedby a few states, how much water does each state receive? If a company is unloadingdebris into a river causing an environmental hazard, is the public or the corporation moreimportant? If one company owns the rights to a water resource, but a city builds tunnelsto divert the flow of water from that resource, is that legal? Questions like these are someof the primary concerns on which the courts had to make their decisions.United States Supreme Court CasesThe State of Arizona v. The State of California, Supreme Court Case 1963By: Emily BawananIn 1952, the State of Arizona placed a complaint against California and seven ofits public agencies regarding the rights of the Colorado River and its tributaries. TheUnited States Supreme Court was needed to resolve the dispute between Arizona andCalifornia. Nevada, New Mexico and the United States were later added as parties. Themain controversy was over the amount of water each state had legal rights to use fromthe Colorado River and its tributaries.The case was referred to a Special Master to investigate by taking evidence,finding facts, incorporating laws, and recommending a verdict. With the informationfrom the investigation, the court would then make decisions after a trial was held. The1Court Master held a trial that lasted for approximately two years. Three hundred-fortywitnesses were heard. Thousands of exhibits were introduced, and twenty-five thousandpages of transcript were filled. The case was comprehensively discussed and arguedtwice (State of Arizona v. State of Ca, 1 ).The issue of each state's portion of the waters of the Colorado River and itstributaries came down to the interpretation of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which waspassed by Congress in 1928. The Act interpreted the states share of "the flow of the GilaRiver and the so-called 'surplus water'." On June 3, 1960, the Supreme Court decided infavor of the State of Arizona in a five-to-three decision. The news disappointedCalifornia. The Supreme Court stated that through the Boulder Canyon Project Act,Congress had rationed the waters of the Colorado River with California limited to 4.4million acre-feet. Arizona was allowed 2.8 million acre-feet, and Nevada was allowed0.3 million acre-feet (Colorado River Compact, 2). With the distribution of the ColoradoRiver waters and it tributaries still an ongoing issue among the states, the following yearscontinued to bring more legal issues (Arizona v. CA, I).California VS. United StatesArgued March 28, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978By: Stan MathewsThe United States wanted to impound 2.4 million acre-feet of water fromCalifornia's Stanislaus River as part of its Central Valley project. California argued thatthe government could not impound water without the state's consent under state law.The United State's government then sought a declaratory judgment in Eastern CaliforniaDistrict Court that would allow the U.S government to impound any water they neededfor their federal reclamation project. The district court decided that the government must2attain the state's consent. The state must also agree if there was sufficient unappropriatedwater to be given. The Court of Appeals agreed (CA v. U.S., 1).The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both courts stating, "Because theDistrict Court and the Court of Appeals both held that California could not impose anyconditions whatever on the U.S appropriation permit, those courts did not reach the U.S.'alternative contention that the conditions actually imposed are inconsistent withcongressional directives. . .Nor did they reach California's contention that the U.S isbarred by principles of collateral estoppels from challenging the consistency of the permitconditions (CA v. U.S., 10)."This case essentially decided who had more authority, the federal government orthe state government. The final answer was the federal government. The federalgovernment can confiscate water without attaining the state's consent. The federalgovernment holds supreme over the state government.California Supreme Court CasesPeople of the State of California v. Gold Run Ditch and Mining Co.By: Rachelle Vande PolThe case, People of the State of California v. Gold Run Ditch and Mining 1884Company, was decided in 1884. It can be summarized in one specific question. Can theGold Run Ditch and Mining Company dump debris in the American River? TheAmerican River, which is an unnavigable river, flows into the Sacramento River, whichis also a navigable river. Since the Sacramento River is navigable, the public has somerights concerning its usage (People v. Gold, 2).The problem is that the Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company mines by thehydraulic process. The company owns five hundred acres of mineral land, which is3located next to the American River. They use that proximity to dig ditches and installmany pipes that would discharge all the "tailings" from the mines into the river by theprocess of moving large amounts of water through the pipes. They have been doing thisfor eight years. For five months out of every year the company discharges four to fivethousand cubic yards of solid material daily. This results in a yearly discharge of at leastsix hundred thousand cubic yards. The mine will not be empty of all minerals for at leastanother thirty years so the company would like to continue the hydraulic process, hencethe case (People v. Gold, 1).The people of California want the Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company to quitoperations. The people give many problems associated with the unloading of debris asthe reason to force the Gold Run Ditch and Mining Company to quit. They state that thebed of the American River has been raised from ten to twelve feet. The bed of theSacramento River has been raised from six to twelve feet. This results in widenedchannels and a shallower river. The chance of both rivers overflowing and flooding theland near it increases dramatically. This situation is very detrimental to the land.Thousands of good