<br />.- ,..,
<br />."..",
<br />lUu,)
<br />
<br />them present perfected rights;
<br />3. There have been boundary
<br />changes on. fovr.of the five
<br />reservations involving additional lands
<br />tbat. contain irrigable acreages entitled
<br />t to present perfected righis;._
<br />. 4. The Quethan .tribe is ~~aiting a
<br />determination by the Department of
<br />the' Interior of title to add,ftiolJal land
<br />. entitled to prese'':'t perfected rights;
<br />and .
<br />':' 5,"ThE;:"r'.e.ate..FJa~ntampiguities in
<br />the' propo~ed"supp}.emerital decree
<br />Whichwm cause great stress and
<br />nardship to the Tribes,
<br />At the close of 1977, the state
<br />parties were preparing a response to
<br />the Indians' motion and a reply to the
<br />United States' November, 1977,
<br />response to the states' May 2, 1977,
<br />joint motion,
<br />
<br />Environmental Defense Fund Lawsuit
<br />
<br />On April 14, the Environmental
<br />Defense Fund (EDF) filed a notice of
<br />intent with Douglas Costle, the
<br />Administrator of the Environmental
<br />Protection Agency (EPAl, of EDF's
<br />intent to file suit (1) to set aside
<br />EPA's approval of state water quality
<br />standards for salinity in the Colorado
<br />River and (2) to promulgate and
<br />implement effective salinity standards
<br />and controls, The Colorado River
<br />Basin Salinity Control Forum met with
<br />EDF in an effort to seek an agreeable
<br />settlement to the dispute, but were
<br />unsuccessful as the EDF, on August
<br />22, proceeded to file its co.mplaint in
<br />the U,S. District Court, Washington,
<br />D. C. The civil suit was against
<br />Administrator Costle; Cecil Andrus,
<br />Secretary, Department of Interior; and
<br />R. Keith Higginson, Commissioner,
<br />Bureau of Reclamation. The suit
<br />requested that actions one and two,
<br />above, be effected and, in addition,
<br />that the defendants be required to
<br />implement necessary salinity controls
<br />to maintain salinity at the 1972 levels.
<br />At the request of the states, the
<br />U.S. Government filed a motion on
<br />October 21 for change of venue from
<br />the Washington, D, c., District Court
<br />to the Tenth District Court of
<br />
<br />PhotoeJectronic composition by
<br />CAUFORNIt\ OF'FTCE OF SfAIT PRINTING
<br />
<br />vc 77461-204 4,78 1M LDA
<br />
<br />Colorado. On December 23, the
<br />motion was denied by the District
<br />Court. On November 25, Attorney
<br />General Younger filed a motion, on
<br />behalf of the People of the State of
<br />California, to intervene as a defendant
<br />in the suit, as did each of the other
<br />basin states,
<br />
<br />Rainbow Bridge National
<br />Monument Litigation
<br />
<br />Since 1970, the United States and
<br />Upper Colorado River Basin states
<br />and agencies have been involved in
<br />litigation over Rainbow Bridge
<br />National Monument and the operation
<br />of Lake Powell. The latest lawsuit,
<br />Nakai Ditlo;, et al. v, Stamm, et al.
<br />was filed in 1974 by a group of
<br />Navajo Indians, The Board's 1974 and
<br />1976 Annual Reports described this
<br />suit.
<br />In February 1977, the defendants
<br />filed motions for Summary judgment.
<br />In May 1977, the plaintiffs fileda
<br />motion in opposition to the
<br />defendants' motions, The matter was
<br />argued before the Court in September
<br />1977, and in December 1977, the
<br />Court granted the defendants' motions
<br />for Summary judgment.
<br />The Court rejected the plaintiffs'
<br />claims that their First Amendment
<br />rights of free exercise of religion were
<br />being violated by the operation of
<br />Lake Powell and rejected their claim
<br />that the portion of Section 1 of the
<br />Colorado River Storage Project Act,
<br />dealing with Rainbow Bridge National
<br />Monument, had not been repealed by
<br />Congress. The Court also rejected the
<br />plaintiffs' claims that the operating
<br />criteria for Glen Canyon Dam must be
<br />subjected to an environmental impact
<br />study under the mandate of the 1969
<br />National Environmental Policy Act
<br />(NEPAl and held that the operation
<br />of the dam and reservoir is so strictly
<br />limited by Congressional and
<br />contractua! constraints that the
<br />defendants' actions are merely
<br />ministerial actions which do not rise
<br />to the level of major federal actions.
<br />The Court stated, ". . , NEPA was not
<br />intended by Congress to trap the
<br />
<br />~i..
<br />
<br />.~'.
<br />
<br />continuing operation of Glen Canyon
<br />Dam and Lake Powell in an endless
<br />web of EIS paperwork once the
<br />project was completed and capable of
<br />operating at maximum capacity."
<br />
<br />Yuma Indian Reservation Boundary
<br />
<br />The Board's 1974, 1975, and 1976
<br />Annual Reports described efforts of
<br />the Quechan Tribe of the Yuma
<br />Indian Reservation to expand, by
<br />means of a Secretarial Order, the
<br />boundaries of the Reservation by
<br />32,000 acres of land which the Tribe
<br />had previously transferred to the
<br />United States, On january 18, 1977,
<br />Interior Solicitor H. Gregory Austin
<br />issued Solicitor's Opinion M-36886
<br />upholding the 1936 Opinion of
<br />Solicitor Margold that Indian title to
<br />the non-irrigable lands of the Yuma
<br />Indian Reservation was
<br />unconditionally extinguished on
<br />August 15, 1894, upon ratification by
<br />Congress of the December 4, 1893,
<br />Agreement between the Yuma Indians
<br />and the United States.
<br />After the change in federal
<br />Administration in january, 1977, the
<br />Quechan Tribe made new attempts to
<br />reopen the boundary issue, The newly
<br />appointed Interior Solicitor, Leo
<br />Krulitz, discussed this issue and others
<br />in March with the Chief Engineer, The
<br />Solicitor said that he was studying the
<br />issues, including the implications of
<br />issuing yet another Solicitor's Opinion
<br />on this matter, but also stated that he
<br />would give the Board an opportunity
<br />to further present its views if he
<br />decides to issue another Opinion,
<br />There were no further
<br />developments on this issue during
<br />1977,
<br />
<br />Colorado River Board of California
<br />107 S, Broadway Rm.8103
<br />Los Angeles, California 90012
<br />
|