WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0033)0 lowing the 1964 Decree, Arizona successfully per- suaded Congress to provide for the construction of the Central Arizona Project, a system for delivery of water to central Arizona. If In considering this legislation Co~gress examined the sufficiency of the water supply available to Arizona in light of the'l9G4 Decree.'e The ~enate con~luded that even under the most conserva-, t~ve analysIB the Project was feasible.'. This caIcula- tlO~ ac~ounted for all water rights, including the Indi- ans prIOr decreed rights. to The Project was to receive the remainder of Arizona's share of the wa~r.u Fo}- lo~g the .congressional approval of the Project, the Arlzo~a leg.IBla.ture created a multi-county water con- servatIOn dIBtrlct to contract with the Secretary of the Interior for the Project's water and to collect'taxes (or repayment of the Project's COSts.11 By the time of the recent hearings, that entity had been collecting ad valorem ~es. for approximately six years and was the~ ~oldmg m reserve approximately $9,500,000 to 888lst 1~ the ~epayment of the Project's costs. II Any water rights gIven the Indians would reduce, by almost The State Parties argue that any reopening of this once litigated issue would be unfair to them. Although the facts vary with the individual cases, most of the State Parties claim that they have relied upon the Court's prior determination of the Indians' water rights." This reliance will have been undercut, these parties argue, if the quantity of Indian water rights is increased. . The detrimental impact on these parties by such an amendment cannot be seriously denied. What the Tribes gain someone else'will lose, at least in the fu- ture. to But the present inquiry centers upon detrimen- tal reliance rather than impact. In some 88pects, Arizona appears to present the most compelling case of detrimental reliance. That state initiated the present lawsuit to achieve certainty regarding its share of the Colorado River water. Fol- dians rather than the unfair surprise that may have resulted from tha Court's adoption or e new legal standard ror quantification of water righta, 15: Memorandum of MetropoUtan Water District 27-34 (Jan. 1981); State Parties' Memorandum on Rea Judicata 21-22 (Mar. 1981): Arizona Supplemental Res Judicata Brief (May 1981); Arizona Reply Briaf 7.16 (June 1981); Navada Trial Brief on Rea Judicata 20-22 (May 1981); Ne- vada Reply Brier 10-12 (Jun. 1981); Stata Parties' Post-Trial Opening Bri.f 233-34 (May 1981); State Partiea' Post- Tria1 Closing Bri.f 65-70 (Juna 1981). 16. Tha Tribes argue that by removal of phreatophytes, vegetation along the river, the impact on the states will be I....n.d. See F.M. Ed!. 17. The .trect of this action does not se.m 10 clear because no stete ia presently charged with such use of water by phreatophytea and if .uch water were available it would be part of the rpmAining water which could be \JOed to SBtisfy the Mexican Treaty obUgation. It is not clear whethal' under those circumstances the steteB would benefit in the amounta pro- j.cted by tbe Tribes. This argum.nt appears to be simply a claim to ad- ditional water righta through an alleged SBvinga. Ita such it ignores that consumptive us. is measured by diversions I... return flows. 373 U.S. at 601. 17. Colorado River Basin Proj.ct Act, Pub. L. No. 90-537 1 301 82 Stet. 887 (1968) (codiJied at 43 U.S.C. 11621 (1976)). . . .18. S. REP. No. 408, 90th Cong., tat Sou. 18-21 (1967). presented in . eUldenee 08 U.S. Exh. 161. 19. rd. at 32. Tha Senate calculated thet annual Pro;~ d U . would equal: ."". e venes You TboWIBDda of acre-reet 1976 1990 2000 2030 1,809 1,281 1,061 123 Finn supply in the year 2030 WBB eatirnated to be leu than 361,600 feet of water. rd. at 36 &: n.s. ~ 20. Tr. 2692-93. , 21. rd.; S. RIlP. No. 408, supra note 19. at 32-36. 22. Tr. 2694. 23. Tr. 2695. 38 39