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

Home Browse Search

11111 . g 18 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS in a later Memorandum in Opp oppose the Motion Opposition filed May 1978, the United States continued to opp of the Three Tribes to intervene in order to object to the entry of the proposed decree under Article VI but adjust- t new non - Article VI matters, such as additional In P P R cl claims s for lands were oundary add by 'r stated tha meats and omitted lands, would not be opp osed after the entry of the proposed supplemental decree. ii K.6 States and Other Defendants Positions on Indian Interventions and the California Defendants, '' 25, 1978, the three States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, a opposed the intervention, h filed January against the States without their which a response to the o Motion e i d Tbecauseb Tribes Leave to constitute a suit again h missive their stated shob ld u denied, !, which they because the Tribes do not qualify to intervene as a matter of right or for per the United States and that the Tribes necessary consent and bec their irrigable acreage. However, they -i t should proceed They argued rt that the Tribes are ecalculation of adequately also .ill should proceed under Article II(D) (5) "omitted" within the 1964 boundaries. They argued that res judicata bars any added clams for omitted acreages questioned whether Secretarial orders finally determine Indian Reservation boundaries as the basis for assert- ., , ing water :3hts which, impinge on those of the State parties. _ 25, 1978. They called dated May 22, 1978, to the Petition of the t hire Tribes of for January lnt ventibn dated pril 7, 1978, y is In a Response views to those of the Three Tribes and to the fact that the three States and the California Defendants repeated attention to the fact that the Two Tribes had contrary the proceedings under River Indian Tribes, which have almost three-quarters oot t tal water byrights quantified for the the an Tribes in the Court's decree, are rado R satisfied they l' Indian Tribes y 41 i still i Article VI. dated June 1, 1978, to the April 10, 1978, Motion Imperial Irrigation be to Intervene, Ca or- • 11, In a Nevada, response again raised the argument of the States' immunity oppose the intervention , Nevada, the Coachella Valley County Tribes. .T and parties, of the were willing n opt dfrh motion of thhehropo edesupplemenal decree. These p �� forthwith entry of t proposed the United States supports (or does not op i° to accede to the position of the United States on intervention: i and urged fo � to acc will not, but only subject to condition: ,_ pose) intervention, they and /or a • to assert additional claims under Articles II(D) (5) Intervention must be permissive and not as a matter of right; Intervention must be for limited purposes, i.e., • previously quantified claims, or oth { e r d parts of the ho d no longer represent f; IX only and not to attack other, p the United •� To avoid multiple legal representation and undue delay, the Two Tribes, adopted California's and the Tribes who would have private counsel. ;j 1978, to the Motion of : A ada's R Response, dated June 5, except that, on the grounds of State immunity to suit, it would not consent o Nevada's Response above, the United ein view the United States 1.1 Nevada's though the United States will consent. It also concurred with the view that intervention must be permissive intervention Arizona argued, private counsel is not necessary. Arizona further n of t and not a matter been e t right. l pre, depend for c sea . Arizona upon the I:. , representation of the Tribes has been s sought to be asserted by the Tribes dap • :r part the claims song maintained that in large p determination s k s claims land title water rights which should first be finalized in lower Court decisions before the United States makes claims for water rights therefor. And, finally, if intervention is allowed it should be subject tot the conditions asserted by California and Nevada, above. D City of Los Angeles, { Agencies"), Los Angeles, their Diego (collectively termed "the Urban Ag On June 1, 1978, The Metropolitan `W.,<ater District of Southern California (MW City of San • Diego, and County of Sa g Response. d on (1) "omitted" lands within the undisputed Agencies adopted the Respor3'se of California and Nevada, as had Arizona, and, in addition, The Urban g andnges, They charged boundaries, the Indian claims of increased water e ights based alleged boundary _ boune inc r, and (2) additional irrigable a llows , would position use e entitlement ent ex- increased claims in California, if allowed, would resu��D�s Indian y consumptive use entitlement all the incr approximately Se ceeding the Decree rights by 237,860 acre -feet. Because o Agreement, this would potentially reduce MWD's allocation of Colorado River water by Party gr 20 percent.