WSP09658 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

210J LITIGATION Arizona Y. California Article VI of the decree in Arizona v. Cali- fornia required the parties prior to March 9, 1967, ro exchange among themselves and submit ro the Court their lists of present perfected rights ro Colorado River waters, As defined in article I(G) and (H) of the decree, "present perfected rights" are rights ro main stream waters acquired under state law and measured by the extent of consumptive use prior to June 25, 1929. They also include all main stream water reserved for federal establishments (primarily Indian reserva- tions) prior to that date, regardless of use, if any. Present perfected rights are significant because of the provisions in article II (B) (3) of the dc- cree. That article provides that in any year in which there is less than 7.5 million acre-fect of main stream water for consumptive use among Arizona, California, and Nevada, the Secretary of the Interior shall first provide for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates, and then apportion the amount re- maining in a manner consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by the Court, and consistent with other federal statutes. The Board staff assisted California attorneys in preparing California's lisr of present perfected rights. The list, which was filed with the United States Supreme Court on March 9, 1967, claimed present perfected rights for California agencies and othcr persons in a total quantity of approxi- mately 3,000,000 acre-feet per annum of con- sumptive use. By March 9, 1967, lists of present perfected rights were also filed by the United States, Arizona and Nevada. Table 1 summarizes, in general, the 1967 present perfected rights claims. The claims of the United States and Ari- zona were reviewed and compared with the Cali- fornia claims. The anal vsis showed that either California's claims should be raised or other claims lowered so that all claims would be on the same basis. At the end of the vear California was in the process of preparing revised claims. At the request of the Office of the Attorney General, the Board staff has continued extensive I assistance ro California's attorneys on this aspect of the suit. Although the parties are prepared to litigate these claims, it is hoped that the quanti- ties for each claimant can be settled by stipu- lation. The staff was also active in a review of the data submitted by the United States to all parties as required by article V of the decree. That article requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain records of uses from the mainstream for each water user in the states of Arizona, California and Nevada and of other hydrologic data relating to river operation. The staff determined that the 1967 submission by the United States was not in compliance with the terms of article V (the same determination that it had reached regarding the government's submissions in prior years), and a letter so stating was sent to the United States and all parties by the Attorney Gencral. United States Y. Imperial Irrigation District, et al. In 1933, Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur issued a letter opinion that the acreage limitation provisions (sometimes called the" 160- acre limitation") of the federal reclamation law would not apply to privately owned lands with- in Imperial Irrigation District (liD). Secretary \Vilbur concluded that these lands had a vested water right and "are entitled to have such vested right recognized without regard to the acreage limitation. . . ." IID's water delivery contract was confirmcd, as required by federal law, in a California Superior Court decree that declared that the acreage limitation was not applicable ro liD. Accordingly, there is no acreage limitation provision in the liD contract. For more than 30 vears, Secretaries of the In- terior continued to adhere to this position; and land was bought and sold within lID on the basis of that construction of the law. In 1964, however, the Soliciror of the Depart- ment of the Interior issued an opinion that the Wilbur opinion was wrong and that privately 25 "'. ,