Summary

Pierce Butler United States v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

Subject to an exception with which we have no concern, section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899, forbids the construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress shall have been obtained and until the plans shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler United States v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

We heard counsel on plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction and defendant's motion to dismiss.
We come first to the question whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to warrant an injunction against the State. The allegations will be better understood after brief reference to the Colorado River Compact [1] and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057 (43 USCA §§ 617 to 617t) .
The Compact was made by California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Arizona was not a party.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler United States v. Arizona — Opinion of the Court

No dam is shown to have been necessary. Water is frequently taken from streams for the purposes of irrigation without putting dams across them. Failure specifically to authorize a dam or even approximately to fix location or to require use calculated to aid navigation makes strongly against the plaintiff.
In support of the construction for which it contends, plaintiff asserts that it was under this act that the Secretary of the Interior built the Laguna Dam across the Colorado.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature