WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OQ3297 Any of the parties may apply at the foot of this decree for its amendment or for further re- lief. The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modi- fication of the decree, or any supplementary de- cree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy. IX was desired to allow generally for the correction of virtually any error" Perhaps all that can conclusively be drawn from the history of Article IX is that the provision itself is not explicitly referenced to the re- quest of the United States to leave the Indians' water rights in an open-ended state" FiDdlhg no clear resolu- tion of this matter in the provision's history, I must turn to other sources. Outside authority provides some limited guidance. Provisions virtually identical to Article IX can be found in other interstate water cases in th&original ju- risdiction of the Court. See, e.g., Wisconsin u. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (l929), remedial measures considered, 281 U.S. 179, decree entered, 281 U.S. 696, (1930). de- cree temporarily modified, 352 U.S. 945 (1956). 352 U.S. 983 (1957). decree superseded, 388 U.S. 426 (1967); New Jersey u. New York, 283 U.S. 336, decree entered, 283 U.S. 805 (1931), modified, 347 U.S. 995 (1954). But such cases do not directly speak to the present issue of preclusion. Rather, they merely illus- trate that the Court may make even major modifica- tions of decrees in cases over which it has retained jurisdiction. The State Parties argue that all such cases involved the concept of equitable apportionment which fre- 376 U.S. at 353. This provision, not the rule of res judicata, determines the ability of the Court to ex- amine the omitted lands claims. The definition of the power reserved by Article IX presents a difficult task. Its history and the proceed- ings before the prior Master are not conclusive and would support either a broad or narrow interpretation. The State Parties urge that the Master sought to rec- ommend that the Court grant a final and fixed quanti- ty of Indian water rights in order to allow the other partIes the certainty required for planning" For exam- ple, some 9f the remarks of the Master indicate that he might be disinclined to allow the United States to use Article IX to correct an error in the Indian water rights determination.' On the other hand, some state- ments in the earlier proceedings indicate that Article 3. SPECIAL MAsTBR'S REPORT at 264 ("Financing of irrigation projecta would be ..verely hampered if inv..tors were faced with the poaaibility that elpanding needs on an Indian Reservation migbt result in a reduc. tion of the project', weter ,upply."). Se. also ill. at 264$ 4. The Stata Parti.. cite the Master', referenc.. in his report to fixed quantiti.. of Indian weter rights, 10' note 3 '''pro, and his ltatemeDte in the bearing' indicating that the United Statea would be "bound" by the claims it then made. See Pro Tr. 14165. Although theae ,tatem,nla by the prior Master tend to make the intended point, I find c1010l to the mark an immediately sublOquent escbsn&e betwBOn the Master and United Statea cOWlSeL After the Master told counael that be was bound, COIIDMI responded that, if there was a mistake in the Indian water righla claims, the United Statea would later "ask for leave to correct it. n This lug... tion was plainly rebuffed by the Mester. Pr. Tr. 14156-57. 5. A provision luch as Article IX was urged upon the Court by 0IIll at the Stata Parti.. to avoid "the poaaib1e claim that tbia Court ~ not alter or modify ita rulings herein on the basis that the D_ la rea adju- dicata of the isauea IOIIiht to be conaidered or reconaidered" becauae tb. Court "ahould not deaire to find itaelf em~d by a provision in the Decree or ruling if the United Statal or partiea can Iatar convince tbia Court that tbia Court', determination bas been erran..... or unWork- able." Supplement and Amendment to Imperial lrription Diatrlct'. Form of "Decree of Court as Heretofore and Herewith Submitted" 11 (Dee. 1963). 6. See Pr. Tr. 12456-69, 13508. 32 33