Laserfiche WebLink
<br />wards. In the Colorado River Basin there are about thirty <br />Indian reservations consisting of about 26,000,000 acres, and <br />yet it is apparent from the negotiating minutes of the <br />Colorado River Commission that Indian water needs were <br />thought to have been negligible. Modern claims mock that <br />view. New Mexico's entitlement under the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Compact, for instance, is 11.2.5 percent 01 the <br />Upper Basin's share after the deduction of 50,000 acre-feet <br />for Arizona; assuming a full supply, New Mexico is entitled <br />to deplete 838,125 acre-feet annually. Pursuant to the <br />compact, any rights ultimately adjudicated to New Mexico <br />Indians will be accounted against New Mexico's share. The <br />combined claims of the Navajos, the Ute Mountain Utes, and <br />the Jicarilla Apaches, however, will likely total in the <br />millions of acre-feet. The absurd result is that the Indians <br />would own many times New Mexico's share of San Juan <br />River water. The non-Indians would go begging (Simms, <br />1979, pp. 71-72). <br /> <br />In Arizona v. California (373 U.S. 546), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed <br /> <br />a special master's finding that the quantity of water reserved for use on five <br /> <br />Indian reservations in Arizona, California, and Nevada be determined by the <br /> <br />"practicably irrigable acreage" on the reservations. This was set forth as around <br /> <br />135,000 acres, and the water allocation as about 1,000,000 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />A suit brought later (1977) by the United States on behalf of the Indian tribes <br /> <br />to reopen the case was decided by the Court on March 29, 1983 (103 S.Ct. <br /> <br />1382). The suit contended that the amount of irrigable acreage had originally <br /> <br />been understated and the tribes' water allocation should be recalculated. A <br /> <br />special master was again assigned to study the matter and present findings. <br /> <br />The special master found the tribes should be allowed to intervene and <br /> <br />recommended awarding them additional water rights both for reservation land <br /> <br />later determined to be irrigable and for irrigable lands subsequently found to be <br /> <br />within the boundaries of the reservations. In ruling on states' exceptions to the <br /> <br />master's findings, the Court sustained the tribes' right to intervene, but on res <br /> <br /> <br />judicata principles declined to grant additional water rights for lands later <br /> <br />determined to be irrigable and within the reservations. Justice White said the <br /> <br />-6- <br />