The Third Appellate District reversed a judgment with directions. The court held that an agreement that obligated the State of California to pay certain undetermined costs to fund mitigation measures associated with several parties’ agreements regarding the allocation of Colorado River water did not violate the California Constitution because the agreement provided no means of enforcing that obligation.
In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision resolving the issue of water allocation from the Colorado River to the three states competing for its use: California, Nevada and Arizona. Arizona v. California (1963) 373 U.S. 546 allocated to California far less water than California could use and far more water than either Nevada or Arizona was, at the time, able to use. California was able to make up for its shortfall by using some of the water allocated to its neighbors. As Arizona’s and Nevada’s water uses increased, California found itself with a water supply inadequate for its needs.
