Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001550 <br /> <br />€i~~~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />affecting the performance of, any obligations owing by the United <br />states to Indians. It is presul)led that the states have no power to <br />disturb these relations and it was thought wise to declare that no <br />such result was intended," Hoover Dam Documents, supra, at p. A42 <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />The Ten Tribes t exclusion from the 1922 Compact is fully <br />consistent with federal water I;)olicies existing early in the <br />twentieth century as they related to Indian Tribes. Prior to 1922, <br />the United states had only made very modest attempts at development <br />of the Tribal water rights. Thus, in 1904, Congress enacted <br />special legiSlation authorizing the United states to utilize the <br />then new reclamation policies to develop irrigated agriculture on <br />the Fort Yuma Reservation and on the Colorado River Reservation, 32 <br /> <br />stat. 388. <br /> <br />Ill, 19.35 Congress authorized the Parker Dam and <br /> <br />Reservoir primarily to provide water to California via the Colorado <br />River Aqueduct Canal, but also to provide water for expanded <br />irrigation of the Colorado River Reservation. Next, Congress <br />authorized the Headgate Dam, again for river stabilization and the <br />delivery of additional waters tQ the Colorado River Reservation. <br /> <br />The next significant involvement by the United states in the <br />Indian waters of the Colorado River occurred in the proceedings of <br />Arizona v.California 373, U.S. 546 (1963). That case was brought <br />in the United states Supreme Court by Arizona after it and <br />California were unable to determine an allocation of the Lower <br />Basin waters. The United States intervened on behalf of a number <br /> <br />24 <br />