Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VU'v <br /> <br />c.:.::e::-ences <br /> <br />-_'~._ ~-~, -n.ar-e~ <br />_..__c:... .j _ _ <br /> <br />....~ ':7"..,:- S <br />- -:.;lo,- <br /> <br />as cO::l'?a::-ec.' app::-o,?r:'..at.:.-;e <br /> <br />rig~ts (Indian ::-:.gh:s ~ave rioar:.an tendencies ~hich 9reclude <br /> <br />the:.r 20mplete integration into the appropria::.ve syste~) and <br /> <br />(4) the desi::-e of the InGians to keep info~a:ion secret relating <br /> <br />to their claims and, in some cases, to avoid ~~antification of <br /> <br />cheir clai::ls. <br /> <br />(A recently passed resolution c: the National Con- <br /> <br />gress of American Indians stated in ?art "VII. :'he federal govern- <br /> <br />ment shall protect and not disclose informaticn it holds related to <br /> <br /> <br />Indian resources. This protection shall incl~de any necessary <br /> <br /> <br />ammenamenL:s to L:he Freedom of InformaL:ion Act,.. .") <br /> <br />In 1963 the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. California that <br /> <br />the water rights of five Indian tribes should oe .'Cuantified on <br /> <br />the basis of the number of acres within their res~rvations which <br /> <br />could be practicably irrigated. The practica~ly irrigable acreage <br /> <br /> <br />approach has caused considerable controversy and -.as resulted <br /> <br />in extremely large amounts of scarce water in the southwestern <br /> <br />United States being awarded to tribes with small populations. In <br /> <br /> <br />Arizona v. Califo~ia. five tribes with a total population of ap- <br /> <br /> <br />proximately 2,000 members were awarded a diversion right of approx- <br /> <br /> <br />imately 900,000 acre feet per year (consumpti-re use estimated at <br /> <br />600,000 acre feet per year). By comparison, the total current use <br /> <br /> <br />of Colorado River water in the UniL:ed States is approximately <br /> <br /> <br />10,000,000 acre feet per year. The case has ~een r~opened to con- <br /> <br /> <br />sider claims by the United States and the five tribes for additional <br /> <br />water based upon the practicably irrigable acreage concept. If the <br /> <br />Supreme Court accepts the Special Naster's dece~ination regarding <br />the omitted lands, the tribes' tocal right cc divert Colorado <br /> <br />River water will ~e in excess of 1,200,000 acre feec per year. <br />