WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002225 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. 51 that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the prac- ticably irrigable acreage on the reservations. Arizona, on the other hand, contends that the quantity of water reserved should be measured by the Indians' "reasonably foreseeable needs," which, in fact, means by the number of Indians. How many Indians there will be and what their fut,ure uses will be can only be guessed. We have concluded, as did the Master, that the only feasible and fair way by which reserved water for the reservations can be measured is irrigable acreage. The various acreages of irrigable land which the Master found to be on the different reservations we find to be reasonable. We disagree with the Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation. We hold that it is unnecessary to resolve those disputes here. Should a dispute over title arise because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water to either area, the dispute can be settled at that time. The Master ruled that the principle underlying the reservation of water rights for Indian Reservations was equally applicable to other federal establishments such as National Recreation Areas and National Forests. We agree with the conclusions of the Master that the United States intended to reserve water sufficient for the future requirements of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila National Forest. We reject the claim of the United States that it is entitled to the use, without charge against its consump- tion, of any waters that would have been wasted but for salvage by the Government on its wildlife preserves. Whatever the intrisic merits of this claim, it is incon- sistent with the Act's command that consumptive use shall be measured by diversions less returns to the river.