WSP11935

• File Number: 8210.140.20
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
• State: CA
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 1/1/1977
• Author: Myron B Holburt
• Title: Annual Report for the Calendar Year 1976
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

. ........
J..~..;,

changes which were incorporated into
another revised drait stipulation which
was also submitted to the Solicitor.
Following se\leral months of waiting
for a response from the Solicitor, a
meeting with thp Secretary of the
Interior. as had been previously
promised, was requested in October.
The Se<:retary replied that he would
honor the commitment of the
previous Secretary to meet with the
parties. but that it was his belief that .)
preponderance of the issues invol...ed
in the proposed stipulation of present
pt'rfe<:ted rights were legdl dnd should
be resol...ed if possible by a meeting
of the federal .md state legal
representati...es.
In De<:ember, another mt'eting was
held in Los Angeles betwet:'n the
United Statt's and the parties at which
the United States' rppresentati...es
stated that. in ordpr for the propo<,ed
stipulated judgmpnt to be acceptable,
it must include additional waIN for
the lands transfl'rred to the LOWN
Colorado River Indian Tribes by
orders of the Se<:rl'tary of Interior
issued since the 1964 Decree in
Arizond v. California_ Since the issues
covering most of these land., had
already bet:'n litigated before the
Special Mastt'r in Arizona ....
Californid, and the Master had ruled
against the United States' position that
lands belonged to the tribes. the state
representatives could not agrt.>e to the
proposal. A proposal was then made
by the states to separate the
miscellaneous present pt'rlE'Cted rights
from those of the major water districts
and agree to them b... a separate
stipulation. The United States'
representati...es said they would
consider that approach. A stipulation
consisting of onl" the miscellaneous
users was prepared and submitted by
the Attorney GenNal's office to the
Departments of Interior and Justice.
A few days after the end of thp
year, the Solicitor notified the partiC'S
that he was rejecting the proposed
stipulation of prt.'Sent perle<:ted rights
submilled in Jul... 1976. In addilion, he
stated that he did not fff'1 it
appropriate under thp prt"'ioent
circumstances to act on the separate

rE'quest for a spulement of
miscellaneous present perfe<:ted rights.

Lower Colorado Ri~er Return Flow
Studv

The Federal.State Task Force on
Ground Water Return Flows to the
lower Colorado River met only once
during 197610 re...ie...... the work
accomplished by the Bureau of
RE'Clamation and U.S. Geological
Survey in their program to medsurt'
subsurfact' return flows to the Lower
Colorado River not presently being
credited to the diveners.
De...elopment of a computer model
of tht' underground formations and
groundwatpr flow in the Yuma area
continued, and piezometer
installations in anticipation of future
computer modeling continued in
Parker, Palo Verde, and Ciboloil
Valleys. It is anticipated thaI the
results from such model studi(>S will
eventually be accepted as return flow
credits to the Statt'S pursuant to
Article V(B) of the 1964 Decree in
Arizona v. CaliforniJ.
Field reviews of underground return
flows .....prf' madt' by the Board's
Principal Engineer and Bureau of
Reclamation engint't'rs at the
Metropolitan Water Districl's intake
facilities and reservoirs near P.ilrker
Dam, and also at Needles and the
Fort Moha....e Indian Reservation.
Tt'ntative agreement was reached on
oil procedure for computing return flow
credits for the Metropolitan Water
District.
The Board's Chief Engineer met
with Sevada and Arizona water
officials rt>garding a proposal of
1'ievada for determining return flow
credits for that state for watt"r entering
Lake Mead from Las Vegas Wash. The
Bureau oi Reclamation had not
previously been giving l\Ievadoil any
credit ior return flo\....s_ The Board's
staff analyzed ~evada's proposal and
determined that it is a rational method
for determining return Ilow credits but
a'~ found that there were other
alternative methods that Mav be more

. '-

equitable to California's interests. A
legal analysis of the problem was
requested from thp California Attorney
General's office.

Rainbow Bridge ,,'ational
.1.1onument litigation

Prpvious legal controversies over
Rainbow Bridge National Monument
and the operation of Lake Powell
have been dt'scribed in prior annual
reports of the Board. The latest
lawsuit, Sakai Dit/'oi. et al v.Stdmm,
et a/, was filed in September 1974, in
the U.S. District Court for Utah by a
group of Na"ajo Indians. The Court
granted inter.'ention in February 1975,
to Utah, Colorado, and the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District.
Activities during 1976 includt'd
pleadings and various discovery
proceedings, including preparation of
interrogatories, depositions, affidavits,
and answers to interrogatories. In late
1976, the defendants and the
intervenors prepared motions for
Summary Judgment in favor of the
dt'fendants which Me to be filed with
the Court in early 1977. The motions
are bast'd upon the grounds that the
pleadings, depositions, ans......ers to
interrogatories and affidavits in the
case show that there is no genuine
issue as to an~' material fact. Some of
the points of law listed in
memorandums of support, in addition
to several others, were: (1) the
plaintiffs ha\l' no property interest in
Rainbow Bridge. ( 2l the opt'ration of
Lake Powell is not subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, (3) the plaintiffs waited 15
vears to assert their claims, and (4)
the plaintiifs are attempting to
relitigate the decision reached in 1973
b... the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

IS