WSP03024

• File Number: 8230.100.10
• Description: Colorado River Basin Colorado River Litigation - Interstate Litigation - Arizona Vs California
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 2/22/1982
• Author: Elbert P Tuttle
• Title: In the Supreme Court of the US - October Term 1981 - Report - Special Master Elbert P Tuttle
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

States, wanting to limit the issues to be examined by
the Special Master and to avoid unnecessarily pro-
tracted hearings, suggested that the Court lay down
the following governing principles:

(l) That the claims advanced in respect of
"boundary lands" are now ripe for adjudication,
and that this Court (and therefore its Master)
will not undertake to review in these proceed-
ings the correctness of the boundary adjust-
ments which have been settled or accepted by
the Secretary of the Interior, nor to decide any
title disputes affecting particular parcels within
a Reservation:
(2) That the entitlement of any Reservation
to additional mainstream diversions on account
of boundary adjustments is determined in ac-
cordance with the standard and the formulae
utilized by the Court in its original decision;
(3) That, accordingly, the only task of the
Special Master in relation to the claims made
for "boundary lands" is to make findings as to
the "practicably irrigable" acreage comprised
within the restored areas and to recommend ad-
ditional mainstream diversions by applying the
acre-feet per acre ratios already established for
each Reservation: .
(4) That the claims in respect of "omitted
lands" are not foreclosed and must be deter-
mined on their merits;
(5) That additional diversions on account of
areas not before considered should be deter-
mined in accordance with the standard and the
formulae previously established;
(6) That, accordinglr, the only task of the
Special Master in relation to the claims made
for "omitted lands" is to make findin~ as to the
"practicably irrigable" acrea~e comprISed within
the areas omitted from consideration during the
original proceedings and to recommend addi-

24

003293

tional mainstream diversions by appl~ng the
acre-feet per acre ratios already established for
each Reservation.DD

The State Parties responded that the omitted lands
question was subject to the principies of res judicata
and none of the boundaries under consideration had
been finally determined, making the correctness of the
purported boundaries to be an issue ripe for adjudica-
tion for the purpose of resolving water rights claims. U
The 1979 Decree followed the recommend~ions of
the State Parties and the United States in setting the
priority rights to the water. Moreover, in that Decree,
the Court denied the motion of the Fort Mojave,
Chemehuevi, and Quechan Tribes to intervene insofar
as they sought to oppose entry of the Supplemental
Decree. Recognizing that other matters raised by this
motion, the Colorado River and Cocopah motion, and
the United States' motion were unresolved, the Court
referred these motions to the undersigned, as Special
Master.DD
The State Parties, although not always in complete
agreement among themselves, generally adopted posi-
tions similar to those taken in their motions to tha
Court. M Accordingly, on March 29, 1979 I presented to

.

53. Ill. at 33-36.
64. Raoponoa of 8tata Parties to Motion for Modification of Decree
(Feb. 1979).
56. 439 U.s. 419, 438 (1979); <<0 U.8. 942 (1979).
66. Arizona, California, and Neveda Dtaud that the 11th Amendm."t
barred intervention without their consent. c.lifomia and Nevada would
bave givan their OODIent upon certain conditiona. Arizona unCOlldition- .
ally refused to consent. The three Dtates and the CoacbaUa Valley
County Watar District staud thet ths Reservation boundaries ohouJd
now be finally determined by the Master. Memorandum of the Stales of
Arizona, Califomia, and NaYa4a and the Coachella Valley County Water
District Rerarding Certain Preliminary Issues (Apr. 1979). The four Cali-

25