Laserfiche WebLink
<br />correct, prediction would be required about the future <br />needs.'. <br />Further, the Master found that the water rights <br />may be utilized regardless of the identity of the partic- <br />ular user. He specifically mentioned the possibility of <br />leasing lands with water rights to non-Indians.eo <br />Finally, for each Reservation. he found that for the <br />benefit of the Indians the United States has the right <br />to an annual maximum diversion of a specified number <br />of acre-feet of water from the Colorado River or the <br />quantity of water neces881'y to supply the consumptive <br />use of irrigation of a specified number of acres and for <br />the satisfaction of related uses, whichever is less. He <br />also found priority dates for these water rights." In ar- <br />riving at his conclusion with respect to irrigable acre- <br />age, he found it necessary to resolve certain boundary <br />disputes regarding the Fort Mojave and Colorado <br />River Indian Reservations." <br /> <br />29. Id. at 262-65. <br />30. Id. at 266. <br />31. Id. at 267-87. <br />32. Id. at 274-78, 283.87. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />003287 <br /> <br />Indian Water Rights Recommended by Master Rifkind <br />Acre-Feet Diversion Acres Priority Date <br /> <br />Chemehuevi 11,340 1,900 2/2/19{Y'f <br />Cocopah 2,744 431 9/27/1917 <br />FL Yuma 61,616 7,74l 1/9/1884 <br />Colorado River 717,148 107,688 3/3/1885 <br /> 11/22/1873 <br /> 11/16/1874 <br /> 6/16/1876 <br /> 11~2/1916. <br />FL Mojave 122,648 18,974 9/18/1890 <br /> 2/2/1911. <br />Total 906,496 136.636 - <br /> <br />.The Master did not specify the acrea to be given these prioritiea <br />because the evidenca did not permit such. finding. U <br /> <br />2. Supreme Court Opinion on the Special <br />Master's Findings-Arizona v. California, 373 <br />U.S. 546 (1963) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court generally upheld the Master's <br />findings as to the division of the Colorado River water <br />among the States and as to the reservation of water for <br />federal establishments. : <br />With respect to the allocation of water among the <br />States, the Court had few difficulties with the Master's <br />conclusions. The significant differences resulted in an <br />increase in the discretionary power accorded the' Sec- <br />retary. The Secretary was allowed, without regard to <br />state law, to determine the intr8lltate allocation of <br />water under the Project Act by deciding with whom 00 <br />contract within la state and what the priorities are for <br />various intrastate uses. 373 U.S. 585-90. Moreover, in <br /> <br />33. IlL at 274 n.33, 283 n.67. <br /> <br />13 <br />