WSP01522 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ t.., r) 1\,)'- in Arizona) and 18,076 acre-feet for the Colorado River Indian Reservation (all in California) due to boundary changes. In addition, claims were made for an unspecified amount of water for irrigable lands within the undisputed boundaries of the two reservations. Responses to the various, motions and petitions were filed with the Court by the parties. On September 8, 1978, a new motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief was filed with the Court by an attorney for private parties involved in judicial proceedings relating to Indian land claims along the lower Colorado River. The Court accepted the amicus brief. The Court heard oral arguments concerning present perfected rights and the various motions on October 10, 1978, in Washington, D.C. On January 9, 1979, the Court entered a supplemental decree for determination of present perfected rights that was identical to one which had been agreed to by the state parties and the United States, In so doing, the Court denied the portion of the motion of the three tribes that opposed the entry of a supplemental decree. Thus, the supplemental decree was entered 14 years and 10 months after the basic Decree, which was entered on March 9, 1964. At that time, the Court gave the parties two years to present their lists of claimed present perfected rights. The supplemental decree was accomplished without a trial and presentation of evidence, but required an enormous amount of staff time, fact-finding, and negotiations. Other portions of the motions of the three tribes and the two tribes regarding bases for intervention were referred to a Special Master, as previously indicated. Yuma Indian Reservation Boundary The Board's Annual Reports for the years 1974-77 described efforts of the Quechan Tribe of the Yuma Indian Reservation to expand, by means of a Secretarial Order, the boundaries of the Reservation by some 32,000 acres of land which the Tribe has previously transferred to the United States. On December 20, 1978, Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus signed a Secretarial Order which purportedly restored the original 1884 boundaries of the Reservation. This Order followed a new Solicitor's Opinion by leo M. Krulitz which reversed three former Opinions by Solicitors Margold in 1936, Weinberg in 1968, and Austin in 1977. None of the California or Arizona affected parties were informed of the pending action nor were given an opportunity to comment on the draft Opinion, as had been promised by Solicitor Krulitz on March 30, 1977. As noted in the previous section, the next day, December 21, 1978, the United States Department of Justice included the Secretarial Order in its motion filed with the Supreme Court for modification of the Decree in Arizona v. California to provide additional water rights to the Reservation based upon additional irrigable acreage in the "restored" boundaries. The United States claimed additional reserved water rights for 5,500 acres, 4,200 in California and 1,300 in Arizona. A total of 28,017 acre-feet of diversions is claimed in California, the estimated consumptive use of which would be between 13,900 and 18,900 acre-feet per year. The 1977 Austin Opinion supported the earlier Opinions of Margold and Weinberg and was very comprehensive. It concluded that the 1893 agreement between the Quechan Indians and the United States, ratified by Congress in 1894, was an absolute cession of the Indians' title to the non-irrigable lands of the Reservation; that the Indians' interests in the irrigable lands were limited to the allotments made to individuals comprising the Tribe; and that, even if the cession was conditional, all material conditions on the part of the United States were met and the cession had occurred. Solicitor Krulitz's Opinion bases its conclusion that the 1884 boundaries of the Reservation are still valid on his finding that the 1893 agreement and 16 ~ II; the act of Congress in 1894 in ratifying that agreement were conditional actions. The Opinion holds that, since the specified conditions were not implemented, the agreement was void. Termination of Unauthorized Colorado River Water Use On June 7, 1978, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to propo~e rule-making entitled "Procedural Methods for Implementing Colorado River Water Conservation Measures with lower Basin Contractors and Others". The notice asks for suggestions and recommendations on how the Secretary of the Interior may best pursue the termination of noncontract uses. letters were sent to unauthorized water users to notify them of the proposed termination of illegal diversions. Arizona users were advised to contact appropriate State agencies to determine the availability of water for contracting purposes. For unauthorized water users in California, notice was given that ultimately domestic users (but not agricultural users) may be able to contract with the Secretary of the Interior for a permanent water supply if the United States is able to develop a water supply for that purpose pursuant to investigations now in progress. An environmental assessment will be prepared prior to publication of the final regulations. Lower Colorado River Return Flow Study The activities of the Federal-State Task Force on Ground Water Return Flows to the lower Colorado River have been described in the Board's previous annual reports. Although the Task Force has been in existence since 1970 in an advisory capacity to the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.s. Geological Survey, it has not met regularly in recent years due to the slow pace in developing information which can be used to determine Hoover power plant near Las Vegas provides much of the energy for pumping Colorado River water.