ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 8,
Orig.
Decided June 3, 1963—Decree entered March 9, 1964—entered February 28, 1966—Decided and supplemental decree entered January 9, 1979—Decided March 30, 1983—Second supplemental decree entered April 16, 1984—Decided June 19, 2000—
Supplemental decree entered October 10, 2000
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.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.