WSP11122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iv o w ~,. w difference over the Wellton-Mohawk groundwaters is susceptible of judicial decision and that arbitration may be sought under Article 1 of the Inter-American Arbi- tration Treaty of 1929. Adjudication in the International Court of Justice also appears to be available. We are of the view that domestic courts of the United States wouid not have jurisdiction in a dispute between sov- ereigns such as this. . A summary of the opinion with reference to injured landowners in the Mexicali Valley is now to be stated. 1. We think the 1944 treaty does not grant rights enforceable by individuals. We think a domestic court of the United States would probably hold that the treaty does not grant rights. to individuals in this instance which are enforceable in the courts. 2. We think it is possible that an action could be successfully brought in a court sitting in Arizona seeking damages and/or injunctive relief against the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. . A right may exist in Arizona to recover damages and! or injunctive relief against the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. Assuming Arizona law to be the proper law, we have found no decision of a court sitting in Arizona which considers the extent of the right to drain into a natural watercourse. Decisions from other western states, however, indicate that natural water- courses may be used as a drain for artificially originated waters only so long as such use is noninjurious. Concerning such an action, two caveats must be stated. First, to obtain injunctive relief against the district, it would be essentiai to show that the district rather than the United States through the Bureau of Reclamation is presently responsible for the drainage of groundwaters, Le., that operation and control of the drainage facilities reside with the district. We are advised by the Solicitor L r ,'"'<)'-',