Laserfiche WebLink
<br />033282 <br /> <br />. <br />the event of a shortage of water, the Secretary was <br />given broad discretion to allocate the remaining water. <br />[d. at 592-94. At this point, the Court noted the Secre- <br />tary's statutory obligation to respect "present per- <br />fected rights" as of the date the Act was passed. [d. at <br />594. Finally, the Secretary was allowed to charge Ne- <br />vada and Arizona for diversions above Lake Mead up <br />to Lee Ferry, the beginning of the Lower Basin of the <br />Colorado Rivl'r. [d. at 590-91. <br />The Court similarly adopted the majority of the <br />Master's decisions respecting the reservations of water <br />for federal establishments. The Indian Reservations is- <br />sue attracted the greatest attention among these. The <br />Court found that the United States has the power to <br />reserve water rights for Indian Reservations, id. at <br />597-98, and that the United States implicitly intended <br />to exercise that power with respect to the five Indian <br />Reservations. [d. at 598-600. Thus, the Court held that <br />these water rights having vested before the Act be- <br />came effective on June 25, 1929, were "present per- <br />fec~d rights" entitled to priority under the Act. [d. <br />On the issues of quantity the Court further upheld the <br />Master's findings that the rights were reserved for fu- <br />ture use, that the rights should be measured by the <br />water required to irrigate the practicably irrigable <br />acreage, and that the number of acres found to be <br />practicably irrigable was reasonable. [d. at 600-01.' <br />On one point the Court disagreed with the Master. <br />It felt that he should not have determined the dis- <br />puted boundaries of two of the Indian Reservations. <br />Finding it unnecessary to resolve those issues, the <br />Court left these disputes to future rllsolution.H [d. at <br /> <br />601. Because the Court had agreed with the Master's <br />finding on the number of irrigable acres on the Reser- <br />vations, the Court's holding with respect to boundaries <br />meant that only those irrigable acres found by the <br />Master to be within the Reservations' boundaries were <br />to receive water rights. .. <br />The legal directives to implement the principles of <br />the 1963 opinion were delayed to allow the recom- <br />mended decree to be amended to accommodate minor <br />points on which the Court disagreed with the Special <br />Master. [d. at 602. · <br /> <br />3. The 1964 Decree-Arizona v. California, 376 <br />U,S. 340 (1964) <br /> <br />In 1964, the Court issued a decree implementing <br />the findings of its 1963 Opinion. This 1964 Decree sub- <br />stantially settled the water rights among the states, as <br />well as the water rights of the Indians to water from <br />the states' allotments. But some matters were clearly <br />left open by this Decree. <br />The 1964 Decree carried out its purpose in the <br />form of an injunction. The United States and its oper- <br />atives were enjoined to release the 9010rado River <br />mainstream water only in specified allotments that <br />tracked the findings of the 1963 Opinion. <br />The division in Article II among the Lower Basin <br />states provided the basis of the Decree. H the main- <br />stream water downstream from Lee Ferry equalled <br />7,500,000 acre-feet of water for annual consumptive <br /> <br />liver water to the diaputed areaa. See 373 U.S. at 601. When the 19M <br />Decree eet a fixed quantity for diveniODll, the Court alated thet the <br />quantities then fixed could be adjusted by decree or lllfe8tDent if the <br />boundori... were fioaIIy determined. 376 U.S. at 346. Thia subject ia more <br />fully addre....d later. See Part One at n.B. infra. <br /> <br />34. In its opinion the Court appeared to suggest that this waa a title <br />dispute and that the Secretary had some discretion in any event to de- <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />15 <br />