Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />( <br />I <br /> <br />Verde Irrigation District (PVID), the Yuma Project Reservation Division (VPRD), the Imperial Irrigation <br />District (110), and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Figure I, found at the end of this report, <br />depicts the historic projected end-of-year agricultural use for the year. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California <br /> <br />The latest decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Arizona v. California litigation <br />concerns various exceptions (appeals) taken by the parties to the recommendations of the Special Master <br />with respect to the claims of certain Indian reservations to increased Colorado River water rights based on <br />reservation land boundary disputes, <br /> <br />The parties agreed to a settlement of the claims for additional water by the Fort Mojave Indian <br />Reservation and thc Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Special Master recommended that those <br />settlements be approved. (These settlements encompass an additional 5300 acre feet of water.) The <br />Supreme Court agreed and adopted this recommendation. <br /> <br />The parties could not agree to a settlement of the claims for additional water by the Fort Yuma <br />(Quechan) Indian Reservation, however. That claim rests on the contention that the Fort Yuma Reservation <br />encompasses some 25,000 acres of disputed boundary lands which were not attributed to that reservation <br />in earlier stages ofthe litigation. The Special Master recommended that Fort Yuma's claim to the additional <br />land-and the water rights attendant thereto-be denied based, in part, on the fact that the Quechan Tribe had <br />already recovered $15 million in the U,S. Court of Claims because the tribe had been divested of <br />ownership of the very lands for which it is claiming water rights in the current proceeding, <br /> <br />The Supreme Court rejected the Special Master's recommendation, holding that Fort Yuma's <br />recovery in the Court of Claims does not preclude the tribe from asserting ownership in the disputed lands <br />in this proceeding, The Court remanded the matter back to the Special Master for a determination on the <br />merits of the boundary claim, Should the tribe prevail on its boundary claim, it will be entitled to water <br />rights attendant to the amount of "practicably irrigable acreage" within the enlarged rcservation boundary. <br />The amount of practicably irrigable acreage for the land here in dispute was litigated before a former <br />Special Master 20 years ago, and our exceptions to his recommendation of an additional 78,000 acre feet <br />of water rights are still pending before the Supreme Court, <br /> <br />Colorado River Operations <br /> <br />Annual Operating Plan <br /> <br />The second year 2000 meeting of the Colorado River Management Work Group was held on June <br />21 ", During that meeting Reclamation requested input regarding next year's determinations for the 200 I <br />Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River System Reservoirs (2001 AOP). There were some attendees <br />who opposed a surplus condition without a seven state agreement tied to Califomia's implementation of <br />its Colorado River Water Use Plan. <br /> <br />Reclamation made a presentation supporting a surplus declaration, in which California concurred. <br />The Upper Colorado Rivcr Commission and the State of Arizona opposed such a declaration until <br /> <br />2 <br />