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

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER I 19 Although the Urban Agencies opposed redetermination of irrigable acreages within the undisputed Reser- vation boundaries; i.e., the "omitted" lands, they believed it timely to determine the Reservation boundary issues, including those of the Three Tribes. However, the Urban Agencies repeated the arguments of the States Response to the effect that the Secretarial orders as to boundary changes were not binding for the purpose of establishing a claim for a Federally reserved water right which would impinge on MWD's water rights, and that this argument applied to similar claims of the Three Tribes as well. They also maintained that res judicata barred all claims for "omit- ted" lands as that issue had been fully tried in Arizona v. California. The Urban Agencies did not oppose permissive intervention of the Two Tribes solely for the purpose of litigating additional water rights based on alleged expansion of Indian Reservation boundaries, nor the similar claims of the Three Tribes, and requested the appointment of a Special Master to adjudicate all these bou da, ary disputes under Articles II(D) (5) and IX of the 1964 Decree. However, as did California, Coachella Valley County Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, they attached conditions thereto. The proposed supplemental nde ee ndentcounsel that the United States not be allowed concurrently to Tribes epresent lowed to intervene with independent the Tribes as trustee. K. 7 Supreme Court Nearing and Supplemental Decree On October 10, 1978, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the various parties to the aforesaid Motions, Petitions and Responses. On January 9, 1979, in a Per Curiam Opinion, the Court ordered l that the Joint Motion of the United States, Arizona, the California D fenda t decree which was the a Supt l e Article decree (filed May 30, 1978) is granted, and entered the supplemental VI of the 1964- Decree and of negotiation and argument since that time. The Court appointed Judge EIbert P. Tuttle as Special Master with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings. The Court denied the motion of the Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, et al. , for leave to intervene to oppose entry to the supplemental decree, and referred this motion in all other aspects and the motion of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, ef al.., to. the Special Master. A copy of -the supplemental. decree appears in Appendix 1005 K.8 New Phase of Decreed Rights .. Even before the Supreme Court had resolved the Article VI PPRs by its supplemental decree of January 9, 1979, the United States on December 21, 1978, filed a Motion for Modification of the Decree (of March 9, 1964) and Supporting Memorandum. The motion sought to permit additional diversions of mainstream water for the five Reservations. The reasons therefore were: (1) The boundaries of the Reservations "have been finally determined..." (2) The boundary adjustments, effected since the Decree of March 9, 1964, have confirmed additionally practicably irrigable lands for which the United States reserved water rights, as follows: Fort Mohave Reservation Chemehuevi Reservation Colorado River Reservation Fort Yuma Reservation Cocopah Reservation 3,000 acres in California 150 acres in California 3,110 acres in California 4,200 acres in California 1,300 acres in Arizona 1,112 acres in Arizona (3) There are within the boundaries of the Reservations practicably irrigable lands which, in approximate erroneously omitted from consi and are entitled to reserved water rights: