WSP01522

• File Number: 8210.140.20
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations and Entities - Colorado River Basin States Forum - California
• State: CA
• Basin: Western Slope
• Date: 1/1/1979
• Author: Myron B Holburt
• Title: Annual Report for the Calendar Year 1978
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

.~ c/. ~~I
1 ' '
. -

backwaters, approved a continuation
of dredging in Topock Marsh to
improve fish and wildlife habitat, and
discussed a demonstration
revegetation project for wildlife
habitat near Blythe and a proposed
vegetation clearing program in the
Colorado River flood plain near
Yuma. A subcommittee of the Work
Group was reactivated to study the
river channel stabilization plan for the
lower portion of the Parker Division
on the Colorado River Indian
Reservation. The subcommittee will
utilize the new principles and
standards of the federal Water
Resources Council in their analysis of
the alternative plans for the project.

legal Issues

Arizona v. California

On December 21, 1978, the United
States filed a motion with the U.S.
Supreme Court for modification of the
Decree to permit diversion of an
additional 199,443 acre-feet of
Colorado River water to the five
Indian reservations along the lower
Colorado River, including 112,362
acre-feet in Arizona, 86,112 acre-feet
in California, and 969 acre-feet in
Nevada. The motion was filed
pursuant to Article IX of the March 9,
1964, U.S. Supreme Court Decree in
Arizona v. California which provides:
"Any of the parties may apply at
the foot of this decree for its
amendment or for further relief.
The Court retains jurisdiction of this
suit for the purpose of any order,
direction, or modification of the
decree, or any supplementary
decree, that may at any time be
deemed proper in relation to the
subject matter in controversy."
This is the first time in the 15-year life
of the Decree that any of the parties
has invoked Article IX.
Within California, the claims are for
65,806 acre-feet for "boundary
adjustments" and 20,306 acre-feet for

"omitted lands". The additional
consumptive use resulting from 86,112
acre-feet of diversions is estimated to
be between 43,000 and 59,000
acre-feet. The filing of the motion was
only one day after Secretary of the
Interior Andrus signed a Secretarial
Order which purportedly restored the
original 1884 boundaries of the Yuma
Indian Reservation, which action is
described in a subsequent section.
On January 9, 1979, the Court
referred this motion, and the
December 1977 and April 1978
motions for leave to intervene by the
five lower Colorado River Indian
tribes through their own counsel, to a
Special Master for hearing. These
motions are described in the next
section on Present Perfected Rights.
Elbert Tuttle, a judge of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta,
Georgia, was appointed Special
Master.

Present Perfected Rights
Progress continued to be made
during 1978 in the settlement of the
issues of present perfected rights in
the Arizona v. California litigation. As
defined in the 1964 U.S. Supreme
Court Decree, present perfected rights
are mainstream water rights acquired
under state law and exercised by an
actual diversion, or federal reserved
water rights, both established prior to
June 25, 1929, the effective date of
the Boulder Canyon Project Act.
The Board's 1977 Annual Report
described a motion for leave to
intervene filed with the Supreme
Court in late December 1977, by
three of the five lower Colorado
River Indian tribes holding decreed
present perfected rights under Arizona
v. California and the United States'
November 1977 response to the state
parties' May 2, 1977, joint motion for
determination of present perfected
rights. The state parties filed a joint
response to the Court on January 25,
1978, opposing the motion of the
three tribes and contending that
proceedings toward carrying out the
Court's mandate under Article VI of
the 1964 Decree should be allowed to

14

continue between the existing parties.
On February 27, 1978, the state
parties filed a reply with the Court
stating that the United Stgtes'
November 1977 proposal was
acceptable and that the United States
and the state parties intended to file a
joint motion for entry of a
supplemental decree. This was
accomplished on May 26, 1978, when
a "Joint Motion for the Entry of a
Supplemental Decree", a "Proposed
Supplemental Decree", and a
"Memorandum in Support of
Proposed Supplemental Decree" was
filed with the Court.
On April 7, 1978, the three Indian
tribes that filed the December 1977
motion for leave to intervene (Fort
Mojave, Chemehuevi, and Quechan)
also filed with the Court a petition of
intervention and a brief in support of
the petition. The petition asked the
Court to allow the Indians to
intervene and to not grant the state
parties' joint motion for determination
of present perfected rights. The
petition also asserted claims for up to
605,300 acre-feet of additional
mainstream Colorado River water for
four tribes (Fort Mojave, Colorado
River, Chemehuevi, and Quechan) in
the States of Arizona, California, and
Nevada. Although no breakdown of
the claims was made between the
States, it was apparent that over
200,000 acre-feet of the additional
claims were in California.
On April 10, 1978, a motion to
intervene and a petition of
intervention was filed with the Court
by the two other lower Colorado
River Indian Tribes holding decreed
present perfected rights (Cocopah
and Colorado River). The two tribes
seek to intervene for purposes of
litigating additional Indian claims
under Article IX and Article 11(0) (5)
of the Decree, but agree that the joint
motion for determination of present
perfected rights should be adopted by
the Court. The motion asserted claims
for 4,969 acre-feet of additional
mainstream Colorado River water for
the Cocopah Indian Reservation (all

Irrigation from the Coache!!a Branch of
the All-American Canal makes agriculture
flourish near the Salton Sea.