C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

II 16 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS • Present perfected rights" (PPRs) were first referred to, but not a ion 6 of the Boul, in Article of the Comp P act of 1922 as "unimpaired by this compact." The term next appeared to in the use of Hoover Darn 16nd reservoir. and 305-310) and is Supreme Act as pv a the second pri t ' pages 15 Arizona v. California discusses the term (see pag years by a Court Decree of March Decree g v4, the parties U.S. 2 years agree o PPRs but this was increased to 3 y y Article VI of the Decre gave the p Supreme Court order of February 28, 1966, 383 U.S. 268. • PPRs are important because in years in which there is less than 7.5 maf of Colorado River water for con- 1 use in the Lower Basin States, which has not yet occurred, s PPRs are d Federal reservations (3) of su p S ser a 301( h) e the Decree). Further; PPRs;- as well as users served under limited to 4.4 maf /yr ( ii rights prior to the Central Arizona Project, with California's priority the Colora do River Basin Project Act, September 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 885) . PPRs will be viable after the Cen- tral Arizona Project is operational. 1 K.2 Negotiations • . Negotiations proceeded in 1964 between the United States Departments o le Interi Arzona as Justice the and State representatives. The Arizona Interstate Stream Commission took the lead nia Attorney General's Office for California. to comply with the Decree definition of PPRs in recreating Problems were soon apparent in attempting events which occurred over 30 years ago; e.g•, the acres irrigated pre-June e water 1 9 2 9 , had change quanta es of 0 "' water applied to lands pre -June 25, 1929; the fact that current points of !'. • June 25, 1929; whether the PPRs would be writtewhether with he de "defined area of land" ctould Decree, or entire area ; ea i ; �: a single diversion figure urged by the States; and within a district. _ Each State and the United States filed lists s and questioned. Finally, on April 12, 1973 3 not i relevant facts. Information acre-feet of diversions created to develo relevan � terior provided Justice with a draft of proposed stipulation with a single number in turn that the 1964 Decree a dual limitation) and priority dates assigned to each claimant. Justice suggested ;+' eate be modified so that. the PPRs for the Indian Reservations would similarly be stated in terms of a single diver - ilt sion figure. the States agreed to insert in each claim the number of acres to be , i. In an effort to meet Justice's objections, postponed. The Tribes dial- r ■ irrigated. Due to objections .from the Indian Tribes further negotiations were postp the Unit States 1 dates. They challenged the and the the accuracy the non-Indian own cla aPPRs e r inadequately es of water and priority by doctrine challenged ll "relation and the v that non -Indian was ample to satisfy all PPRs and claimed that the do ., `� States assertion that the water supply l to the United States. back" used by the States did not apply rovided a study by Earth Environmental Con , t !: The Bureau of Indian Affairs in behalf of the Tribes also p the United States in their behalf r sultants, Inc., which charged that no claim of water acres made es of land on by he five Reservations even though �ji'' s: during Arizona v. California for app roximately 50, i the were irrigable. (The study did not assert that these lands were "practicably irrigable" rri a the EEC study.) was the test y • �` adopted by the Court. Reclamation and the State Pa position and agreed to subordinate all major non - Indian i4 On July 2, 1976, the States reversed their prior p PPR claims (but not the miscellaneous claims which in terms of a dual limitation tThe PPRs Indians as stated in the Decree and to list all non Indian enlarged 225 acres of.land within boundaries of Reservations which were enlarge also extend to not more than 4, ��, . i.e., the States were not accepting validity of the ' are hereafter established by decree or future stipulation •e•, the v 1110 ; I enlargements but only the formula for determining their right to to water. a er. Further negotiations were unsuccessful and on January 19, 1977, Interior's Solicitor Austin advised the cement on the miscellaneous claims States that he was rejecting their proposed Stipulation as well as an y agr ed b the States. The rejection, according to the States, was because of alleged prejudice to the Indian as urg y claims. t