WSP09695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6538 . . l' lands, in particular the rights to water for "omitted" lands - irrigable lands within the 1964 boundaries of the reservations, for which the United States had failed to claim water rights in the earlier litigation - and for "boundary" lands - land that had since 1964 been determined to lie within one of the reservations. Again, the Court appointed a Special Master to study the issues and to make recommendations. On this occasion, howev- er, the Supreme Court. acting on the principle of ~ judicata, overruled that recommendation of the Special Master in regard to the "omitted" lands. although it sustained him with respect to certain of the "boundary" lands. In this 1983 decision ( U.S._, 75 L.Ed.2d 318]. the Court gave evidence of a turning point in its previously generous interpretation of Indian entitlement to water for tribal consumptive use. Th is conservative bent was reflected a few months later in Nevada v. United States ( U.S._, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983)), iNhen it declined to validate certain claims of the Pyramid Lake Paiute I ndian Tribe to additional water rights in the Truckee River in Nevada. Facing now what they consider a hostile environment in the judicial arena, Indian tribes can be expected to become increasingly amenable to negotiation, especially when they are in a position to use the threat of litigation as leverage in arranging negotiated settlements that can be subsequently ratified in legislative enactments. A fitting example of this is that of the Ak-Chin Community, which is part of the Maricopa Ak-Chin Reservation in Arizona. At the time the reservation was established in 1912 it was awarded a decree of 70,000 acre-feet of water annually. a sufficient supply for what became the Ak-Chin Farms, which by 1960 encompassed some 11,000 acres. During the 1970'5, however. depletion of ground water in the area, resulting from use by non-Indian farmers on ':.~.:~-::~. , 8 ~~. . ~.: , - .. --_. - ._---~ ---.