WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003291 (2) This [l979 Decree] shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determi- nations relating to settlement of the Indian reservation boundaries referred to in Art. Il(D)(5) of [the 1964] Decree [boundaries to the Colorado River and Fort Mojave In- dian Reservations]; (3) Article IX of the [l964 Decree] is not af- fected by this list of present perfected rights: (4) Any water rights listed . . . may be exer- cised only for beneficial uses. ' for intervention." Then on April 10, 1978, the Colo- rado River Indian Tribes and the Cocopah Indian Tribe filed a motion for leave to intervene and a peti- tion for intervention." The Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, and Quechan In- dian Tribes sought in their interventi~n to oppose en- try of the 1979 Decree that was to set the priority or- der for water rights in the Colorado River. The Petition of the Cocopah and Colorado River Indian Tribes did not seek to oppose the entry of the Decree. Both groups of Indians raised claims outside the scope of the Article VI determinations intended to be embodied in the 1979 Decree. They sought to inter- vene because they felt the United States could not ad- equately represent their interests. All five Tribes, in essence, claimed entitlement to water rights appurte- nant to two types of land: (1) boundary land - land that was or should have been officially recognized for the first time as a part of the Reservations; and (2) omitted lands - irrigable lands, within the recognized 1964 boundaries of the Reservations, for which the United States failed to claim water rights in the earlier litigation. The motion filed by the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, and Quechan Tribes claimed that these issues could be raised because of the in'adequate prior representation of the United States. The Cocopah and Colorado River Indian Tribes alleged that the omitted' lands claim was open to relitigation, because of inade- quate representation, but with respect to that claim and the boundary lands claim thete two Tribes also 439 U.S. at 421. B. Present Proceedings The 1979 Decree resolved major issues in the litiga- tion. But before that Decree was entered new ques- tions arose. The five Indian Tribes followed by the United States made claiDlll for additional water rights to Reservation lands. The Indian Tribes previously had no part in the lit- igation. The United States had represented them. Then in December of 1977, the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi and Quechan (Ft. Yuma) Indian Tribes moved for leave to intervene as indispensable parties." On April 7, 1978, those three Tribes, apparently joined by the Colorado River Indian Tribes,'. filed a petition 41. Motion for Leave to Intervene as Indiapenaable Parti.. (Dec. 1977). 42. The Colorado River Indian Tribes did not wish to join in this mo- tion. The Slate Parti.. response to this petition notes lbat lbe Tribes had noted that lbey did not join in this motion and asked that lbeir name be removed from the pleadings. Response of State Parties to Peti- tion of Intervention 5 n.1 (May 1978). See Lettar from Franklin McCabe, Jr., Chairman. Tribal Council of Colorado River IDdian Tribeo, to CJerk of lbe Court (May 10, 1978). 43. Petition of Intervention (Apr. 7, 1978). <<. Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition of Intervention (Apr. 10, 1978). - 20 21