Chapter 1: Summary of "The Law of the River"

Home Browse Search

16 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS not defined, in "Present perfected rights" (PPRs) were first referred to, ear � n Section 6 of the Bo le Canyon Project of the Compact of 1922 as "unimpaired by this compact. The term next app Act as part of the second priority in the use of Hoover 5 161x234-235, and 305 -310) and the Supreme Arizona v. California discusses the term (see pages 1 rti icles ( Court Decree of March 9, 1964, 376U. s 340 adefi agree on PPRs b ut this was i d in to 3 years by a Article V[ of the Decree gave the p a 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 - su mp use in the Lower Basin States, which has not yet oexisting, PPRs is andSFederal reservati ( hav o su e p the Decree). Further, PPRs, as well as users served un e Section 301(b) of rights prior to the Central Arizona Pro ect, w ith C 30 01968, 82 Stat 885). PPRSwill be viable after the Cen the Colorado River Basin Proje ct Act, Sep tral Arizona Project is operational. K.2 Negotiations an ns proceeded in 1964 between the United States Departme d role for erior na d justice as did the Califore Neg p representatives. The Arizona Interstate Stream Commission took the nia Attorney General's Office for California. to comply with the Decree definition of PPRs in recreating Problems were soon apparent in attempting e. the acres irrigated pre -June 25, 1929, or the quantities of events which occurred over 30 years ago; g•, w w at audualtl,m�tationfs water milar d iversion o that in he Decree, ater applied to lands pre -June 25, 1929; the fact or with June 25, 1929; whether the PPRs would written a single diversion figure urged by the States; and whether the "defined area of land" could be the entire area State Task Force within a district. r ` d States filed lists as hanged and questioned. Finally, on April 12, 1973 ins Each State and the Unite i created to develop relevant facts. Information w tenor rovided Justice with a draft of proposed.stiputation with a single number of acre -feet of diversions not p dates assigned to each claimant. Justice suggested in turn that the 1964 Decree a dual limitation) and priority Id similarly be stated in terms of a single diver- be modified so that the PPRs for the Indian Reservations wou -- �, Sion figure.. meet j o the States agreed to insert in each claim the number of acres to be In an effort to objections, e ed. The Tribes chat- irrigated. Due to objections f the Indian Tribes further negotiations were posfi the United States the lenged the accuracy of their own decreed PPRs e r quantities of quantities s r and priority datesr They challenged "relation j and the validity of the non - Indian claims as all PPRs and clatmri that the doctrine o States assertion that the water supply was ample to satisfy back" used by the States did not apply to the United States. y study b Earth Environmental Con - the United States in their behalf of Indian Affairs irs in behalf of the Tribes also provided a The Bureau sultants, Inc ., which charged that no claim of1w50r000 acre of land the five Reservations even though during Arizona v. California for approximate y they were irrigable. (The study did not assert that these lands were "practicably irrigab rri O b e" EEC stu e tes adopted by the Court. Reclamation and the State opart►� tion and agreed to subordinate all major non- Indian but On July 2, 1976, the States reversed their prior P o ich were enlarged "or PPR claims (but not the miscellaneous claims a ms in terms of a d ual lim tation tThe ssubord nation would stated in the Decree and to list all n on-Indian c were numerous also extend to not more than 4,225 acres of fand b eun t heStatesRwere not accepting validity of the are hereafter established by decree or future stip enlargements but only the formula for determining their righ19 1977, Interior's Solicitor Austin advised the Further negotiations were unsuccessful and on January the miscellaneous claims l - any States hat - he "was rejecting their - proposed- Stiputotig�e States, l Was bec agreement on ause of alleged prejudice -to .the Indian as urged by the States. The rejection, according claims.