The Coolidge examiner., 1941-03-14

years. The cases were argued be
fore the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals at San francisco
last December.
One of the cases grew out of the
action taken by the Governor and
officials of the State of New Mexi
co in January, 1889, in sending
New Mexico State Police to oust
Charles A. Firth, ella Water
Commissioner appointed by the
Arizona Federal District Court,
from administering the waters of
the Gila River within the State of
New Mexico. New Mexico State
officials and landowners contend
ed that the ella River Decree -
which adjucated the water rights
along the Gila River in Arizona
and in Virden Valley, New Mexico,
was void so far as the New MeXi-
co waterusers were concerned be-
cause the Arizona Federal District
Court was without jurisdiction to
pass on or. administer the waters
of the Gila River in New Mexico.
Following the action of the New
Mexico officials in ousting Water
Commissioner Firth, contempt pro-
ceedings were instituted before
Judge Albert Nj. Sames of the Arl-
zona Federal District Court against
the landowners in New Mexico who
were taking water from the ella
River contrary TO the provisions
of the Decree. The New Mexico
landowners were found guilty OF
contempt for violating the provi-
sions of the Decree and were lined
500 each and the aggregate sum
of s3.1OO. The United States CIR
cult Court of Apeals at San fran
cisco. to which the New Mexico
waterusers appealed, upheld the
action of Judge Sames and the
position of the San Carlos Project
and Water Commissioner Firth
and ruled that the "Gila River De-
cree was valid and binding on the
New Mexico waterusers. The case
is of great Importance to the Flor
ence-Casa Grande Valley landown-
ers since it upholds the validity OF
the ella River Decree under
which the water rights of the San
Carlos Project are established.
The other case decided by the
United States Circurit of Appeals
is also of vital consequence to San
Carlos Project landowners. 1t grew
out of the controversy between
the waterusers of the Duncan and
Stafford valleys in Graham county,
on the one hand, and waterusers
of the San Carlos Project on the
other. concerning the proper inter
probation and administration OF the
ella River Decree" regarding the
apportionment of the waters of the
Gila River between the upper and
lower users. The landowners OF
Stafford and Duncan Valley con-
tended that under the Decree all
water flowing into the San Carlos
Reservoir behind the Coolidge dam
should be considered as stored
water and an amount equal TO all
such water should be apportioned
TO the upper valleys in d1sragard OF
the earlier natural flow rights OF
the lower users in the Florence
Casa Grande Valley. The san
Carlos Project contended that It's
landowners were entitled to nave
their earlier priorities served by
niloting the natural flow OF the
stream through the San Carlos
reservoir and that the water pliol'
ed through the reservoir shoulu
not be considered as stored water
or taken into account in making
annortionments to the upper water
users. Water Commissioner Flrth
agreed with the San Carlos Pro-
iect's Interpretation of the Decree
and aportioned the water accord
ingly. The waterusers of the Dun,
can and Stafford Valleys petltloneo
Judge Albert NJ. Sames to require
tho Water Commissioner to ad-
minister and apportion the waters
of the Gila River in accordance
with their Interpretation of the De,
cree and following the ruling Oh
Judge Sames that the action OF
the Water Commissioner was cor
rect. appealed to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The decision OF the
Circuit Court of Appeals handed
down last Monday upheld the DIS
trict Court Judgment and the posi-
tion of the San Carlos Project as
to the meaning of the Decree. Inc
favorable ruling of the Circuit
Court of Appeals in this case is
of considerable Importance to the
Florence-Casa Grande Valley land
owners since the Interpretation oil
the Decree contened for by the
upper users. would have done away
with all natural flow rights below