WSP03024

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River Basin Colorado River Litigation - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 2/22/1982
• Author: Elbert P Tuttle
• Title: In the Supreme Court of the US - October Term 1981 - Report - Special Master Elbert P Tuttle
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

003283

River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act,
43 U.S.C. fi 617 (1976). Nevada later intervened seek-
ing a determination of her water rights. The United
States also intervened seeking water rights on behalf
of various federal establishments, including five Indian
Reservationsl-the Colorado River Indian Reserva-
tion, the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, the Fort
Yuma Indian Reservation, the Chemehuevi Indian
Reservation, and the Cocopah Indian Reservation. In
1955 Simon Rifkind was appointed Special Master vice
George I. Haight, deceased, and lengthy hearings and
deliberations occupied the next several years.
In 1960, Master Rifkind filed his report recom-
mending a certain division of the Colorado River wa-
ters and generally sustaining the United States' claims.
His findings were substantially adopted by the Su-
preme Court in its 1963 opinion, 373 U.S. 546, and its
1964 Decree, 376 U.S. 340. In 1979, the Court issued a
Supplemental Decree which set forth the various pri-
orities to be attached to th,ese earlier decreed water
rightS. 439 U.S. 419 (1979). The major questions in
these earlier proceedings involved the division of water
rights among the states and the priorities to be allo-
cated to those water rights. The claims made by the
United States for water rights to the five Indian Reser-
vations were a relatively small part of the larger
picture.
Most of the larger questions concerning water
rights on the Colorado River were resolved by the 1964
and 1979 Decrees. These Decrees, however, left open
the question of the final determination of some of the
boundaries of the Indian Reservations. In addition,

prior to the issuance of the 1979 Decree, the Tribes
filed motions seeking leave to intervene.' The Tribes
and later the United States" claimed, in various
amounts, water rights for additional acreage. Two
types of claims were asserted: claims of water rights
for acreage which was newly recognized as part of the
Reservations' within the newly-final boundaries, and
claims of water rights for acreage which although rec-
ognized in 1964 as part of the Reservations was alleg-
edly omitted from earlier consideration by error. On
January 9, 1979, the Court appointed the undersigned
as Special Master to consider the issues raised by
these motions..
Following the Court's appointment of a Master, the
State Parties responded by alleging that neither type
of claim could presently be litigated. The claims
within the old boundaries were, according to the State
Parties, precluded by res judicata. The claims based
on the new boundaries were allegedly premature be-
cause the boundaries were not yet final with respect to
the State Parties and, thus, this or other litigation
must first establish that finality before a sufficient
foundation is laid fo~ the water rights claims. They
also opposed many of the water rights ,claims on the
merits. Moreover, they opposed in varying degrees the
Tribes' participation in the proceedings.
Substantial evidence was received on these issues.
The first trial session began on September 2, 1980 in
the United States Courthouse at Denver, Colorado.
Before the final trial session on April 7, 1981, the reo

3. SPECIAL MA8TEIl'S REPoRT at 6. A map of these Reservations W88
introduced 88 Pro U.s. Em. 100.

4. Motion of Chemehuevi, Fort Mojave and Quechan (Ft. Yuma)
Tribes for Leave to Intervene (Dec. 1977); Motion of Colorado River and
Cocopah Tribes for Leave to Intervene (Apr. 1978).
6. Motion of United States for Modification of Decree (Dec. 1978).
6. 439 U.S. 419, 436 (1979).

4

5