WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

033295 boundary determinations made by the district courts and by the Secretary of the Interior to be final. I ini- tially defened decision on the omitted lands question but have since concluded that those dAimA are not barred by res judicata or related doctrines. The rationales underlying the determinations are explained in some detail below. See Part One.at I1.B. infra. Following determinations made in the 1979 prelim- inary report, the parties, including the five Indian Tribes," thoroughly litigated the issues in this case. Based on the evidence'received in these hearings, I now make my findings. II. TYPES or CLAIMS TO BE CONSWERBD 59. Since the early 8tages or the present proceedings, the alipment of the positions or the Tribes has altered eubatantially. AJJ the hearinp commenced. the Colorado Rivar Indian Tribes, Fort Mojava Indian Tribe, Chemehuavi Indian Tribe. and Cocopah Indian Tribe have presented a united front by fiJing briar. jointly and the first three sroupa retained the 88ma upert witnesaea. For convenience these Tribes wi1l be rererred to BB the Four Tribes. The rem.;n;ng Tribe ia tha QuecIwI Tribe or the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, a Tribe which has often 81- serted what appear to be separate views but which in ract were later adopted to 80me extent by the othar Tribes. Two basic types of water rights claims have been alleged by the United States and the Tribes. The dif- ference is found in the character of land to which the rights are claimed to be appurtenailt.--First, there is land which was acknowledged at the time of the earlier proceedings to be within the Reservations. Second, there is land that since that time has either been added to the Reservations or recognized now to be within the boundaries of the Reservations. ThV parties 'have generally labelled these claims respectively as "omitted lands" claims and "boundary lands" claims in reference to the type of land with which the claims are associated. The State Parties have with respect to each sort of claim raised defenses which would cut short the water rights inquiry at various points. I find little merit in the State Parties' arguments and believe that for both types of lands the arguments should pro- ceed to a determination of the quantity of water forthese acres. In connection with a discussion of the reasons for such decisions. I should note that several related argu- ments have been raised by either the State Parties or the Tribes and might profitably be disclissed in this context because these points also concern the number of acres properly held to be within tha Reservations and, thus, eligible for water rights. A Omitted Lands-Preclusion 28 Since the filing of the motions for modification of the decree, the State Parties have opposed any litiga- tion over water rights to the so-called "omitted lands" for which water rights might have been claimed in the 29