WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

01)3292 found support in the 1964 Decree's Article IX which permitted amendment of the Decree's provisions. These two Tribes also noted that the 1964 Decree spe- . cifically left open the boundary lands question regard- ing the Colorado River Indian Reservation. Before the entry of the supplemental decree, the State Parties and the United States filed papers which opposed these motions to intervene. The United States initially argued against intervention by the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, and Quechan Tribes because: (1) it adequately represented the Indians; (2) the then- proposed decree which was offered under Article VI of the 1964 Decree fully protected the Indians; (3) the omitted and boundary lands claims could be brought later under Articles II and IX of the 1964 Decree." But later, the United States stated that it would not oppo~e intervention after a Decree on Article VI was entered..e The State Parties argued that intervention by these three Tribes should be denied because: (1) in- tervention would authorize a suit by the Tribes against the, states in violation of the Eleventh Amendment; (2) any claims for additional water rights should be brought under Articles II and IX; and (3) the Indians did not meet the conditions for either permissive in- tervention or intervention as of right - mainly due to the untimely application." Subsequently, the four Cal- ifornia urban agencies" tiled a response separate from the other State Parties opposing the substantive claims of all five Tribal groups to any additional water rights but not opposing intervention of the Colorado River and Chemeheuvi Tribes if the Tribes had inde- pendent counsel and if the entry of the 1979 Supple- mental Decree would not be de~yed..' Moreover, those agencies did' not oppose litigatioa of the bound- ary lands question if they were permitted to challenge the conectness of the characterization of these lands as Reservation lands. California and Nevada, joined by two water districts, tiled a response consenting to in- tervention of the Colorado River and Cocopah Tribes if: (1) the United States did not oppose intervention; (2) the Supplemental Decree was entered promptly, at least concurrent with a grant of intervention; (3) inter- vention was limited to the purpose of adjudicating only the claims of additional water rights under Arti- cles II and IX (apparently including water rights claims for boundary and omitted lands); (4) the Indi- ans were represented only by individual counsel; (5) the intervention was permissive and not as a matter of right.lo Arizona later filed a respoD!18 apparently op- posing any intervention.n Then on December 22, 1978, the United States moved for entry of a Supplemental Decree to grant ad- ditional water rights for boundary landS and omitted lands.1I .That memorandum recommended that the matter be referred to a Special Master. But the United 49. Response of the Urbm "'encl. to Motion of Colorado River In- dian Tribes and Cocopah Indian Tribe for LeaVll to InterVltDe and Peti- tion of Intervention (June 1975). 50. Respol184l of California and Nevada to the Cocopah and Colorado River Tribee' Motion (June 1975). 51. Response of Ari20na to the Cocopah and CoIow!o Rivu Triba' Motion (June 1978). 52. Motion of United Stetee for MocIiIIcation of Decree and Support- ing Memorandum (Dee. 1975). 45. Memorandum of United Stetes (Feb. 1978). 46. Memorandum of United States (May 1978). 47. Response of Slate Partieo to tbe Fort Mojave, Cbemehuevl, and Quecban Tribes' Motion for Leave to Intervene 81 Indispeneable Puti. (Jan. 1978). ' 46. The Metropolitan Water District of Soutbern CaJi(ornia, City of Los Angel.., City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. 22 23