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

Home Browse Search

18 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS osition filed May 1978, the United States continued to o ppose the Motion In a later Memorandum in Opp the entry of the proposed decree under Article a VI but state of the Three Tribes to intervene in order to object di d that new non - Article VI matters, such as ad fter thelcurent Arfi le pro ceedings were u concluded by ments and omitted lands, would decree. o pposed a the entry of the proposed supp lemental K.6 States and Other Defendants positions on Indian Interven Nevada, and the California Defendants, On January 25, 1978, the three States of Arizona, California, a osed the intervention, filed a response to the Motion of ied Three Leave to Intervene. They opp suit against the or for with t h nr which they stated should be den necessary the United States and that the Tribes consent and because the Tribes do not qualify to intervene as a matter o right shout lion. They argued that the Tribe a are IX fotrlrecalculation their i acreage. boundaries. They also argued that res judicata bars any added claims for "omitted" acreages w should proceed under Article iI(D) (5) ithin .questioned whether Secretarial orders finally determine Indian Reservation boundaries as the basis for assert- , ing water rights which impinge on those of the St p Three Tribes for Intervention In a Response dated May 22, 1978, to the Petition of the date April Three 978, the three States and the California Defendants repeated their views of awat 25, 197$. They called r rights quantified for the apparently attention to the fact that the Tw o Tribes had contrary views to those of the Tribes and to the fact that the proceedings under the Colorado River Indian Tribes, which al s atisfied they three re not prejudiced by Indian Trib in the Court's decree, are Article VI. and the Imperial irrigation District stated they still s onse dated June 1, 1978, to the April 10, 19{ 8, Motion of the Two Tribes to Intervene, Ca i or- Inarep nia, Nevada, the Coachella Valley County Water District again raised the argument of the States' immunity su pplemental decree. These parties, however, were willing o ppose the intervention motion of the Three Tribes. They d States on interventio g orts v r does not op to suit and urged forthwith entry of the proposed supp to accede to the position of the Uniten:, i #. the United tates sup only subject to - pose) intervention, they will not, but condition_ • to assert additional claims under Articles II(D) (5) and /or Intervention must be permissive and not as a matter of right; • intervention must be for limited purposes; i.e., IX only and not to attack other, p and u undue delay, To avoid multiple legal representation y the Unhted States should no longer represent • the Tribes who would have private counsel. to suit, it would not consent d rizona's Response, dated June 5, 1978, to the Motion of the Two Tribes, adopted California s an A Nevada's Response above, except that, on the grounds of State immunity There will cons fore, Arizona argued, since the United States t. It also concurred with the view that interventi interve ntion even though the United Stat Arizona further must be permissive and not as a matter of right. private counsel is not necessary. art the claims sought to be asserted by the Tribes depend for their validity upon the representation of the Trib es has been adequate and zealous, maintained that in large p deter mination of land title disputes which should first be finalized faln e ention low s allowed d t should be subject to the e States States makes claims for water rights therefor. And, finally, Angeles, "the Urban Agencies "), conditions asserted by California and Nevada, above. filed their 'an Diego (collectively termed On June 1, 1978, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Cit of Los Cit of San Diego, and County of S based on (1) "omitted" lands within the undispu The Urban Agencies d water rights changes. They c that adopted the Response of California and Nevada, as had Arizona, and, in addition, Response. challenged the Indian claims of increase d would result in an Indian consumptive use entitle e en ceeding the Decree rights by - _ boundaries, and (2) additional irrigable acreage resulting from alleged boundary charged -. _- osition mthe -California all the increased claims in Californi 60Face- feet.�Because of MWD's Priority p a ppr o x ima te ly Sev n Parry Agreement, this would potentially reduce MWD's allocation of Colorado River water y 20 percent.