WSP09658 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 1 PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS CLAIMS SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN MARCH 1967 (Acre-feet per annum) .-' ~ II 1-' ~1...L'..l Claim! SubmitUd by Statu (In terms of consumptive use) ~:foe~:~d;r~;~i~t~;;t,-_-_- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _. . __ Res. Div. (Bard), Yuma Proj.._______________-.n______ fif:cclra~:~~~eCl~i;,,-s-_~ ~= ~: ~ ~ = == = = ~ = = = == ~ = ~ == = == = ~ = = = = = Valley Di,'" Yuma Proj.-______________________________ Yuma Auxiliary Proj.-Unit B..________________u_____ North Gila Valley Irrig. Dist..____._________________.__ Cibola Valley_______ _ _ _un _ _ _ _ u__ _ ____uu _. ________ Supplemental Claim___. _ _ u__ _ _ __ un __ __ _un_ _ u_n_ TotaL,___________________________ Claims Submitttd by U7.iud StaUs (In terms of diversions and acreageH F~d(raf EJlabti.<nmttttJ: Indian Reservations Yuma (7,743 ac)______________ ________._________ Ft.l'vlohave (18,974 ac)_______________________n___ Chemehuevi 0,900 ac)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __n_ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ __ Cocopah (43] ac)________________________________ Colorado Ri\'. (107,588 ac)_________________u______ Lake Mead Nat'J Ree. Arean__ ___________u__________ TotaL__ Fdua/ R~c!{}matiol/ ProjutJ: Res. Div. (Bard), "fuma Proj. (6,215 ac)_______________ Valley Div., Yuma Proj. (46,563 ac)__________________ Yuma Auxiliary Project-Unit B (1,225 ac)____________ North Gila Valley Irrig. Dist. (5,OOOac)_______________ TotaL_________________________________________ Arizona NrrJ4da Total Cal1jortlia 2,806,000 '}f\Oll'Vl '21:i62 2,000 2,145.7 2,806,000 ?OR 1m -ii:ii;i 2,000 47,229,22 279,378 7,350 31,840 27,706 8,000 . '~ 45,084,52 279,378 7,350 31,840 27,706 8,000 399,358,52 3,039,407,7 o 3,438,766,22 96,4l6 2,744 662,402 51,616 13 ,698 12,534 11,340 54,746 500 131,400 13,034 39,561 51,616 122,648 11,340 2,744 717,148 500 905,996 761,562 39,561 299,852 6,801 31,994 378,208 299,852 6,801 31,994 338,647 39,561 o . United State~ ;l]~o submitted claims for the~e mer!. See Fedual Reclamation Projects in thil table. t United S/.He.! 'laud ,ha: claim, would not un-cd the diversions and would be the diveniomor the amount necenary to supply the con1umptive ule for rnpettive .cre,ge. whichever is 1e5~. owned lands within lID are subject to the acre- age limitation provisions of the federal reclama- tion la ws. In January 1967, the United States filed suit against liD in the federal district court in San Diego and sought a declaratory judgment that the acreage limitation does apply to privately owned lands within the district. By stipulation, nine private landowners were permitted, as rep- resentatives of the alleged excess land owners, to intervene as defendants. The state of California, on motion made by Attorney General Lynch, was permitted to intervene as a defendant over the opposition of the United States. The State's motion was granted because its Colorado River water rights-namely, those of lID, including its present perfected rights-are involved in the defenses asserted in the action. Of course, the state and the other defendants are opposing the 26 application of the acreage limitation provisions to privately owned lands within 110. Procedurally, the case is still in pre-trial and discovery stages. The panies have agreed to a bifurcated trial: In phase one, the issue would be whether the acreage limitation applies to pri- vately owned lands within 110. If not, the trial would conclude. If so, in phase two, the issue would be the extent to which water rights would preclude or restrict the application of the limita- tion. However, trial is not expected to begin until the summer of 1968, at the earliest. At the request of the Attorney General's office, the Principal Engineer has attended the court proceedings and participated in confer- ences among defendants. As the litigation pro- ceeds, the staff will continue to assist the At- torney General's office in the defense of the SUIt. .