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

.
4. Fort Yuma Indian Reservation . . . . . .. 62
5. Cocopah Indian Reservation ......... 62
C. Miscellaneous Boundary and Related
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
1. Fort Mojave Indian Reservation . . . . .. 76
(a) United States Claims ........... 76
(i) Intermediate Tract . . . . . . . .. 77
(ii) Checkerboard Area . . . . . . . .. 81
(iii) Adjustment to the United
States Claims on the Fort
Mojave Indian Reservation 84
(b) Fort Mojave Tribe's Claims of
Error.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . ... 85
2. Adjustments on the Colorado River.
Indian Reservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8'7

III. PROOF OF THE CASE. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . '" 88
A. Standard of Proof . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . ... 88
B. The Quantification Standard-The
Meaning of Practicably Irrigable . . . . . . .. 89
1. General .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ... 89
2. Profit Margin. . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... 99
C. Gross-to-Net Reduction in Acreage. . . . . .100

IV. PRIORITY DATES FOR ADDITIONAL
WATER RIGHTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..104

V. REQUESTED WATER RIGHTS. . . . . . . . . .106

VI. FINDINGS OF FACT AND
'CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RELATING TO
THE ffiRIGABILITY OF DISPUTED

LANDS................................. .112

PART TWO

I. CLAIMS PRESENTED BY THE UNITED
STATES. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .125

A. INTRODUCTION.................... .125
B. SANDY LANDS .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 126
1. Low Moisture-Holding Capacity. . . . . .127
2. Related Deficiencies of Sandy Lands 133
3. Economic Analysis of SJP.Idy Lands . . . 134 ~
(a) Introduction.........:".......... 134 w
(b) Yields for Sandy Lands . . . . . . . . .134 ~
(c) PrOduction Costs on Sandy Lands141 m ,
C. GRAVELLY AND COBBL Y LANDS .. .145
1. Physical Analysis of the Parcels . . . . . . 147
(a) CaJada Unit. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . ... . .. 148
(b) Unit FM-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
(c) Unit CH-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
(d) Unit CH-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
(e) Summary of Physical AnalysiS .. .157
2. Economic Analysis of Gravelly and
Cobbly Lands ...................... 159
D. INCLUSION OF NON-ARABLE
LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES

CLAIMS ............................ .161
E. GENERAL COST DIFFERENCES .. . . .164
1. Capital Cost. . .. .. .. .. . : .. . .. . . .. .. . 165
2. Indirect Costs .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . 167
3. Operation, Maintenance and .
Replacement Costs. . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . .170
4. Power and Enel'lY Costs...... .... . . .172
(a) Power Rates .................. .172
(b) Power Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . .176
F. SIZE OF IRRIGATION UNIT AS
CLAIMED AND AS PROVED ... . . . . . .180
G. NEVADA'S CLAIM REGARDING THE .
USE OF WELLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
H. MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL

PARCELS. ........................... .187

ii

iii