|
<br />,---....
<br />!""~
<br />
<br />Colorado River water to wildl;f",
<br />refuges located along the lower
<br />Colorado River. By lelter of June 25,
<br />1980, the Regional Director of the
<br />Lower Colorado Region of the Waler
<br />and Power Resources Sen.'ice notified
<br />the Cibola :'\Jalional Wildlifp Refuge
<br />that it could divert water from the
<br />Colorado River for irrigation 01 about
<br />300 acres on the Refuge, so long as
<br />surplus water is being released from
<br />lake Mead. The Colorado River
<br />Board, at its March 19, 1980, meeting,
<br />concluded that it would have no
<br />objections to this use of thl' surplus
<br />flows.
<br />
<br />legal Issues
<br />
<br />Arizona v. CafiformiJ
<br />
<br />On January 7,1980, the U.S.
<br />Supreme Court denied the state
<br />parties' November 1979 mol ion to the
<br />Court to reject the rulings of the
<br />Special Master in Arizona v. Cd/darniJ
<br />contained in his August 1979
<br />"Memorandum and Report on
<br />Preliminarv Issues", The Boord.s 1979
<br />Annual Report describt>d thest. rulings
<br />and the contentions of the state
<br />parties that their rights would be
<br />irrevocably harmed if proceedings
<br />continued before the Special Ma...tpr
<br />with certain issups bt>ing unr~olvf:'d.
<br />The Supreme Court.s ruling in effect
<br />deferred consideration of the Special
<br />Master's rulings until the entire trial
<br />before the Spe<ial MastN is
<br />completed.
<br />Prf'paration for trial continued in
<br />1980 with the BOMd ..taff assi..ting the
<br />office of the California Attornev
<br />Gf'neral as technical advisors. In
<br />February, Board ..taff members
<br />accompanied attorney.. and consulting
<br />engineers for the stdte partie.. in a
<br />field inspection tour of additiondl
<br />claimed irrigable Idnds on the five
<br />laWN Colorado RiH'r Indian
<br />reservations dnd dtlended t\\O wE'l"ks
<br />of depositions of e,pert witnes<.es '"
<br />Phoenix, Arizona, The witnesses \\ere
<br />Questioned concerning enginf:'('ring
<br />reports prepared for the tridl and
<br />other material and included subjects
<br />such ,IS soil surve\S, land classification
<br />
<br />sy..tems, agronomy, irrigation
<br />enginepring. agricultural economics,
<br />and alternative sources of water
<br />supply.
<br />Additional meetings were held in
<br />April in Phoenix and Los Angeles
<br />between representatives of the statE'S,
<br />federal government, and Indian tribes
<br />to discu.... possible compromisE'
<br />settlements of the question of the
<br />extent of dddihonal practicably
<br />irrigable acreage on the five
<br />reservation'> and on a pretrial order
<br />for submission to the Special Master.
<br />Additional dt'positions were also
<br />taken. Membt>rs of the Board ..taff
<br />altended these meetings.
<br />The tridl pha~e of thp reopening of
<br />A"zonJ v. CaliforniJ before Special
<br />Master Elbert Tunle commenced on
<br />September 2, 1980, in Denver,
<br />Colorado. The first phase of the trial
<br />lasted four week'>, with the Chief
<br />Engineer and the Assistant Chief
<br />Engineer in allendance the major
<br />portion 01- the time providing techniCd!
<br />advice to the California Attorney
<br />GenNdl. On Septembt>r 9, the state
<br />partie... and the Unitt'd Statl's
<br />pres(.nted a ..tipulated settlenwnt to
<br />the Court for their respective claims
<br />for the Colorado River Indian
<br />Reservation. The settlement .....as onlv
<br />between the Unitt'd States and the
<br />statp pdrtit's for thi.. reservation, All of
<br />the tribf>s have ddditiondl claims of
<br />their own that are in excess of the
<br />claims madt' on their behalf by the
<br />United States. The stipulated
<br />c;eltlement onlv affp(:ts the factual
<br />claim.. and does not affect the legal
<br />cldims of the partit'S.
<br />The Department of lustice
<br />pre..entf'd the basis for the United
<br />Stat(>s' claims for additional
<br />practicablv irrigable acrt'aloW and
<br />associated water rights for the five
<br />resen.'ations. The consultants for the
<br />government testified with regord to
<br />their reports and were crm....examined
<br />bv attornpvs for the Indian tribes and
<br />the state parties. Aiter the 8m ernmenl
<br />completed its ca...e, each of the Indian
<br />tribes pres('ntl:"Cl its case for the
<br />prdcticabl~. irr;gable lands thdt ore
<br />being c1aimt"d in addition to the
<br />United States' claims. Tribal
<br />r€>prest.>ntativp.-, testified as to the
<br />
<br />19
<br />
<br />Indians' needs for the additional lands
<br />and their consultants testified with
<br />regard to their repons, Toward the
<br />close of September, the state parties
<br />began to present their expert
<br />witnesses as to the practicable
<br />irrigability of the claimed lands, but
<br />were unable to complete their
<br />presentation before the trial
<br />proceedings were recessed.
<br />
<br />Two additional claim'> by the Indian
<br />tribes were introduced shortly before
<br />the September phase of the trial
<br />commenced: (1) an additional 1,770
<br />acres for the Chemehuevi Indian
<br />Reservation, in California; and (2) a
<br />modified claim for 10,775 acres for
<br />the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, in
<br />California_ The latter claim
<br />represented a reduction in the total
<br />irrigable area originally claimed by the
<br />tribe, which original orea was not
<br />substantiated by dny technical analysis
<br />of the suitability of the land for
<br />irrigation, The Fort Yuma Resen.'ation
<br />retained a con..ultant to conduct an
<br />investigation of the land, and the
<br />modified claim was based on hi..
<br />investigation.
<br />The state parties objected to the
<br />additional and modified claims but the
<br />Special Masler permitted the claims to
<br />be presented and allowed the statE'
<br />parties to postpone their
<br />cross-examinations therron until
<br />January 1981.
<br />
<br />fmironmentJ/ Defense Fund lawsuit
<br />on Colorado Ri\.er Sa/indy Stdnd.lrd~
<br />
<br />In Novl'mber 1979, U.s. District
<br />Court in Washington, D.C. ruled
<br />against the Environmental Ot>fense
<br />Fund's l EDF) la\..suit that altempted
<br />to rescind the Environmental
<br />Protection Agency's approvdl of the
<br />Colorado River Basin salinit~.
<br />stdndards that have been developed
<br />and .1dopted by the seven Ba,>in
<br />stales. Sub'>E'qUlmtly, EDF appealed
<br />the decision and filed its appellant's
<br />brief with the U.s. District Court of
<br />Appeals in Washington, D_C. on
<br />February 19, 1980. Briefs ha\-e been
<br />filed by the U.S. Depanmt"nt of
<br />Justice and the seven Basin ..tat~, and
<br />oral argument was held in October.
<br />
<br />'I:i:l14-i1)4 '\.II, l\l UH
<br />
|