WSP10764 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l~ ~ OJ .-4 C; o The Board staff analyzed the compilation of diversion and return flow records for cal- endar year 1968 which was prepared by the Department of the Interior in accordance with Article V of the Supreme Court decree. On November 18, 1969, a letter was transmit- ted from the Attorney General's office to U.S. Solicitor Mitchell Me!ich protesting the Secretary's omission of credit for un- measured return flows. Also, the Arizona In- terstate Stream Commission by letter of Sep- tember 22, 1969, protested to the Secretary of the Interior regarding compilation of Article V data. An analysis of claims of miscellaneous present perfected rights users was made dur- ing the year by The Metropolitan Water Dis- trict of Southern California. A report of find- ings on which claims would be challenged was also made. As of the end of the year a California position had not been developed and further action was suspended until an appraisal had been made of the United States position on miscellaneous claims. Topock Marsh. Still pending is the re- quest by the Secretary of the Interior of May 30, 1968, to the Governors of Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada for an amendment to the Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. Cali- fornia to allow Havasu National Wildlife Re- fuge (includes Topock Marsh) to increase its diversions from the Colorado River without increasing consumptive use. The Depart- ment of the Interior has been experiencing considerable difficulty in operating Topock Marsh and in securing accurate measure- ments of diversions and returns. Therefore, California has delayed sending an official reply to the Secretary's request until receipt of additional information and analysis from the United States. From available information, it appears that considerably more water was diverted into Topock Marsh during 1967 and 1968 than allowed under the decree. This was done in an attempt to remedy Marsh problems, but California and Arizona were not informed. In 1969 diversions into the Marsh were re- duced considerably from those of 1967 and 22 1968, again without informing California and Arizona. To date, California has not objected to these diversions to the Marsh, but it has sought to obtain a study of the problem and means to improve conditions, It is particular- ly desired to know if increased diversions will actually solve the problems and if they can be made without an increase in consump- tive use. The limited data received to date do not support this conclusion. On November 18, 1969, the need for a study supporting the Secretary's request was reiterated. As of the end of 1969 an answer had not been received. Unil.d Slal.1 v. Imp.riallrrigation Oil/rit:t, This case arose out of an opinion by De- partment of the Interior Solicitor Frank J. Barry in 1964 that the land limitation law, included in the Reclamation Act of 1902, should apply to privately owned lands in Im- perial Valley. Further details regarding this case are set forth in the 1968 Colorado River Board Annual Report. During the year, this case was set for trial in the U.S. District Court, San Diego, Cali- fornia, on January 15, 1969, before Judge Fred Kunzel. Late in 1969 Judge Kunze! passed away, and the case was reassigned to another judge for trial. This case is now set for trial on July 17, 1970. Navajo Indian Water Rights Possible litigation involving Navajo Indi- ans and Colorado River water users was de- scribed in a Los Angeles Times article of December 15, 1969. The article described a possible class action to be brought in behalf of all Navajos by the Navajo Legal Services Agency to establish rights of the Navajos of up to 10,000,000 acre-feet per year of water from the Colorado River. The Navajo Legal Services Agency is an organization directly funded by the Office of Economic Oppor- tunity, a Federal agency, and is located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The Upper Colorado River Basin Com- pact, which apportioned the water of the Upper Colorado River system among the