WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use: 2,800,000 was to go to Arizona, 4,400,000 was to go to California, and 300,000 was to go to Nevada. Water in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet was to be shared equally by California and Arizona unless the United States contracted with Nevada to give 4% of the ex- cess to that state out of Arizona's share. If the water supply was less than the annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet, then the Secretary of the Interior was directed to satisfy "present perfected rights," (which included the Indian water rights), "in order of their priority dates without regard to state lines." [d. at 342. The Indian Reservation water rights and their pri- ority dates were set forth later in Article II. The United States was directed to release water to federal establishments only in accordance with the allocations specified. The Decree then specified the diversions in acre-feet of water, number of irrigable acres and prior- ity dates determined by the Master. Each Reservation was to receive either the. diversions specified or the consumptive use of water necessary to serve the acres found irrigable, whichever amount was less. The 1964 Decree lacked a full listing of the "pre- sent perfected rights" and their priority dates. The In- dian water rights were specified to some degree," but the other "present perfected rights," later known in the 1979 Decree as "miscellaneous present perfected rights" remained unspecified. Article VI thus provided that: i I I I I I .1 0""'34)80 I' ;" " Within two yearsS' from the date of this de- cree, the States of Arizona, California, and Ne- vada shall furnish to this Court and to the Sec- retary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates in waters of the maiQStream within each State, respectively, in terms of'tonsumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceedinlf may pre- sent its claim of present perfected n~hts or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secre- tary of the Interior shall supply similar informa- tion, within a similar period of time, with re- spect to the claims of the United States to present, perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present per- fected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may aJ;lply to the Court for the determination of such rIghts by the Court. 376 U.S. at 351-52. The determinations envisioned in Article VI were extremely important because the amounts and dates set under that article would deter- mine the quantities of water and order of priority in times of shortage. Such "present perfected rights" would take priority over any junior rights. Similarly, the non-Indian claims to be classified as "present per- fected rights" could take priority over Indian claims if given a priority date that predated the establishment of an Indian Reservation. In closing, the Court, following the recommenda- tion of the Master, included a provision, Article IX, recognizing the non-final nature of the 1964 Decree: 35. In the 1979 Decree the Indian water rights were again spelled out and each acre-foot of water was than matched with a priority date. 439 U.S. at 423, 428, 436. Due to evidentiary problema this match was not possihle at the time of the 1964 Decree. See note 33 and accompanyins text supra. 36. This period of time was amended on February 28, 1968, to allow three yeara from March 9, 1964. for a determination of prior perfected rights and priority dates. '383 U.s. 268 (1966). l6 17