My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:02 AM
Creation date
5/21/2010 2:32:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
6/24/2003
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CHAPTER I 19 <br /> Although the Urban Agencies opposed redetermination of irrigable acreages within the undisputed Reser- <br /> vation boundaries; i.e., the "omitted" lands, they believed it timely to determine the Reservation boundary <br /> issues, including those of the Three Tribes. <br /> However, the Urban Agencies repeated the arguments of the States Response to the effect that the <br /> Secretarial orders as to boundary changes were not binding for the purpose of establishing a claim for a <br /> Federally reserved water right which would impinge on MWD's water rights, and that this argument applied <br /> to similar claims of the Three Tribes as well. They also maintained that res judicata barred all claims for "omit- <br /> ted" lands as that issue had been fully tried in Arizona v. California. <br /> The Urban Agencies did not oppose permissive intervention of the Two Tribes solely for the purpose of <br /> litigating additional water rights based on alleged expansion of Indian Reservation boundaries, nor the similar <br /> claims of the Tribes, and requested the appointment of a Special Master to adjudicate all these bound- <br /> ary disputes under Articles II(D) (5) and IX of the 1964 Decree. However, as did California, N evada, <br /> Coachella Valley County Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, they attached conditions thereto.. The <br /> proposed supplemental decree should, they said, be entered now under Article VI and if the Tribes are al- <br /> lowed to intervene with independent counsel that the United States not be allowed concurrently to represent <br /> the Tribes as trustee. <br /> K. 7 Supreme Court Hearing and Supplemental Decree <br /> On October 10, 1978, the Supreme Court heard oral i arguments uriam Opinion the parties to the aforesaid ordered that the <br /> Motions, Petitions and Responses. On January 9, 1979, in supplemental <br /> Joint Motion of the United States, Arizona, the California Defendants, and Nevada to enter a <br /> decree (filed May 30. 1978) is granted, and entered the supplemental decree which was the subject of Article <br /> VI of the 1964 Decree and of negotiation and argument since that time. <br /> The Court appointed Judge Elbert P. Tuttle as Special Master with authority to fix the time and conditions <br /> for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings. <br /> The Court denied the motion of the Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, et al., for leave to intervene to oppose entry <br /> to the supplemental decree, and referred this motion in all other aspects and the motion of the Colorado <br /> River Indian Tribes, et al., to the Special Master. <br /> Appendix 1005. <br /> A copy of the supplemental decree appears pp. <br /> K.8 New Phase of Decreed Rights <br /> Even before the Supreme Court had resolved the Article VI PPRs by its supplemental decree of January 9, <br /> 1979, the United States on December 21, 1978, filed a Motion for Modification of the Decree (of March 9, <br /> 1964) and Supporting Memorandum. The motion sought to permit additional diversions of mainstream <br /> water for the five Reservations. <br /> The reasons therefore were: <br /> (1) The boundaries of the Reservations "have been finally determined..." <br /> (2) The boundary adjustments, effected since the Decree of March 9, 1964, have confirmed additionally <br /> practicably irrigable lands for which the United States reserved water rights, as follows: <br /> Fort Mohave Reservation 3,000 acres in California <br /> Chemehuevi Reservation 150 acres in California <br /> Colorado River Reservation 3,110 acres in California <br /> Fort Yuma Reservation 4,200 acres in California <br /> 1,300 acres in Arizona <br /> Cocopah Reservation 1,112 acres in Arizona <br /> (3) There are within the boundaries of the Reservations practicably irrigable lands which, in approximate <br /> numbers, were erroneously omitted from consideration and are entitled to reserved water rights: <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.