Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />