Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California
E708925
The Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that apportioned Colorado River water among several southwestern states and tribes, forming a key legal foundation of the Law of the River.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Arizona v. California | 2 |
| Arizona v. California Supreme Court decrees | 1 |
| Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T8068025 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California Context triple: [Law of the River, includesInstrument, Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California]
-
A.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
B.
California v. Texas
California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
-
C.
Arizona v. Johnson
Arizona v. Johnson is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified police authority to frisk passengers during lawful traffic stops when officers reasonably suspect they are armed and dangerous.
-
D.
Arizona v. Evans
Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
-
E.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of using an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, to draw congressional district boundaries.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California Target entity description: The Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that apportioned Colorado River water among several southwestern states and tribes, forming a key legal foundation of the Law of the River.
-
A.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
B.
California v. Texas
California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
-
C.
Arizona v. Johnson
Arizona v. Johnson is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified police authority to frisk passengers during lawful traffic stops when officers reasonably suspect they are armed and dangerous.
-
D.
Arizona v. Evans
Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
-
E.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of using an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, to draw congressional district boundaries.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court decree
ⓘ
interstate water apportionment decision ⓘ water rights decree ⓘ |
| addresses |
federal–state relations in water allocation
ⓘ
interstate water disputes in the Colorado River Basin ⓘ tribal water rights in the Colorado River Basin ⓘ |
| allocatesTo |
State of Arizona
ⓘ
linked to:
Arizona
State of California ⓘ
linked to:
California, United States
State of Nevada ⓘ
linked to:
Nevada
|
| appliesTo |
Lower Basin of the Colorado River
ⓘ
linked to:
Lower Colorado River region
mainstream Colorado River below Lee Ferry ⓘ |
| apportions | Colorado River water ⓘ |
| apportionsAmong |
Arizona
ⓘ
California ⓘ
linked to:
California, United States
Nevada ⓘ New Mexico ⓘ Utah ⓘ federally recognized Indian tribes ⓘ |
| basedOn | Boulder Canyon Project Act ⓘ |
| characterizedAs | landmark U.S. Supreme Court water law decision ⓘ |
| clarifies | priority of water rights among states and tribes ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| defines |
mainstream Colorado River water allocations
ⓘ
rights to consumptive use of Colorado River water ⓘ |
| enforcedBy | United States Secretary of the Interior ⓘ |
| field |
environmental law
ⓘ
public law ⓘ water law ⓘ |
| geographicScope |
Southwestern United States
ⓘ
linked to:
southwestern United States
|
| influences |
Colorado River Compact implementation
ⓘ
water management policies in the Lower Colorado River Basin ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States Supreme Court
ⓘ
linked to:
Supreme Court of the United States
|
| legalForm | equitable apportionment decree ⓘ |
| legalStatus | binding decree of the United States Supreme Court ⓘ |
| partOf |
Arizona v. California
ⓘ
Law of the River ⓘ |
| recognizes |
federal reserved water rights doctrine
ⓘ
reserved water rights for Indian reservations ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Arizona v. California ⓘ |
| setsPrecedentFor |
later Supreme Court water apportionment cases
ⓘ
subsequent Colorado River management agreements ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
Indian reserved water rights
ⓘ
federal reclamation law ⓘ interstate allocation of surface water ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California Description of subject: The Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that apportioned Colorado River water among several southwestern states and tribes, forming a key legal foundation of the Law of the River.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California
linked to: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California
linked to: Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California