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

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER I 17 K.3 Back to the Supreme Court On May 3, 1977, a joint motion was filed with the Supreme Court by Arizona, Nevada, California and the seven California public agencies which were the California defendants in Arizona v. California, seeking the Court's determination of the non - Indian PPRs under Article VI of the Court's 1964 Decree. Objections raised by the United States in its November Response to several provisions of the proposed supplemental decree (e.g., to a reference to "reasonable" use of water; to a limitation of Reservation Boundary changes by Secretarial orders; and to a cutoff date for boundary changes) were resolved by the parties. On May 30, 1978, a Joint Motion by all of the aforesaid parties, which now included the United States, was filed with the Court which moved that the Court enter the agreed upon Proposed Supplemental Decree. This included provisions which gave a priority to all Indian PPRs over the non - Indian PPR claimants except for the miscellaneous claims which were relatively minor (approximately 17,504 acre -feet) and largely subsequent to most Indian PPRs. It also contained provisions for recognition of Indian claims based on adjustments of Reservation boundaries. K.4 Indian Intervention Motions On December 23, 1977, the Fort Mohave, the Chemehuevi, and the Quechan Tribes (the "Three Tribes ") filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, and on April 7 1978, filed the required Petition for Intervention. (The Petition included the Colorado River Indian Tribe which had itself removed as petitioner.) The Three Tribes claimed in their Motion to be the real parties in interest and opposed entry of the proposed supplemental decree because it irreparably damaged the Indian PPRs; that it did not solve all the issues, such as the Indian PPRs; that the proposed decree contained ambiguities; that the proposed subordination provisions which gave priority to Indian PPRs were not effective; that the Court was not fully advised by the United States of the status of the boundary claims of the Tribes; that Justice failed to present for the Tribes all of the irrigable acreage in the Reservations totalling 51,263,260 acres ( "omitted acreage"); that they denied the accuracy of each major non- Indian PPR claim; and that their representation by Justice was inadequate. The Petition of the Three Tribes also asserted much of the foregoing as well as the conflicts of interest con- fronting the Secretary of the Interior and the Solicitor General, the failure to communicate with the Indians, and the Government's policy of .preventing full development of Indian PPRs to the detriment of the Tribes. An exhibit to the Petition showing claims for 91,400 acres and 605,300 acre -feet of water for Indian lands was presented to the Court. On April 10, 1978, the two remaining Tribes, the Cocopah and the Colorado River Indian Tribes (the "Two Tribes ") filed a separate Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Petition in Intervention. Cop&ary to the position of the Three Tribes, the Two Tribes stated that they approve and request the entry of the proposed supplemental decree. However, they, too, sought intervention in the litigation in order to solve all rights, both Indian and non - Indian, and asserted that the Government has inadequately discharged its duty to them and had a conflict of interest. The Two Tribes seek to present claims under Article II(D) (5) and IX of the Decree for additional. -.PPRs for lands that have been finally determined to be within the boundaries of their Reservations and to present PPR claims for "omitted" lands in the presentation before the Special Master. These included Cocopah claims for 883.53 acres, of which 780 acres are practicably irrigable with a diversion right of 4,969 acre -feet, and Colo- rado River claims for 4,439 acres, of which 2,710 are practicably irrigable with a diversion right of 18,076 acre -feet. K.5 United States Position on Indian Intervention The United States opposed the Three Tribes' Motion for intervention (but favored submission of their views as amici curiae) by a Memorandum filed February 1978 and denied each Indian argument. The United States j stated it would later seek a determination of additional Indian PPR claims for land involved in Reservation boundary adjustments but would do so under Articles II(D) (5) and IX of the Decree (rather than Article VI of ____— _— the Decree pursuant to which- the .States_Joint Motion was filed). It urged that the proceedings under Article - - - - -- VI should be concluded which would not foreclose a later claim for `omitted" lands under Artie e" . - °-