WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0033;]2 in taking such actions as annexing new areas may have relied upon the terms of the 1964 Decree. Nevada's claim of reliance presents an entirely dif. ferent situation. Nevada's presentation was unpe18ua- sive. Nevada undoubtedly relied upon the decree." But the' reliance according to Nevada's presentation does not appear to have been to Nevada's detriment even if the present claims are granted. Under the 1964 Decree, that state was allocated, for its annual con. sumptive use, 300,000 acre-feet of water." Following the 1964 Decree, Nevada began construction of the Southern Nevada Project which will have a "total di- version capability" of 299,000 acre-feet of water." Ne- vada's expert witness stated that these <!ive18ions would result in a net return flow of approximately 35%, which could be credited to lessen Nevada's con- sumptive use of water through the Project." The con- sumptive use of the Project tl\us approaches only 194,350 acre-feet per year. Despite the representations of Nevada's. counsel and witness, this figure is not "practically the entire state's allocation."" Nevada did not show that granting the present claims would im- pair the ability of the state to divert 299,000 acre-feet of water per year through this Project in a normal year. The Nevada witness did state that any additional Indian water rights would be deducted from the Pro- i ject's diversion rights," but in light of Nevada's confu. sion over the distinction between diversion and con- sumptive use this conclusional statement is unimpressive as a general proposition. This same wit- ness indicated that Nevada's water allocation con. tained 10,000 acre. feet of water for which there was no contract as yet." The real concern must lie in years of shortage.GO But even then Nevada's claim of detrimen. tal impact seems flawed. Nevada has presently set aside for the Indians a total cO/1.8umptive use figure of 12,500 acre-feet of water per year,ll Under the 1964 Decree the one Tribe in Nevada acquired t)le right to divert approximately 12,500 acre-feet per year to irri. gate its land." Obviously, if any water returns to the river, Nevada's total consumptive use will be de- creased by that amount. Yet Nevada made no allow- ance for such return flows. This decision was made ei- ther because, according to ita experts' first explanation, Nevada mistakenly understood the 12,500 acre-feet figure to be a consumptive use figure rather than a diversion figure" or because, according to his second explanation, she was uncertain whether there would be any return flows. U Some return flows should logically be credited and by any formula used in this case the consumptive use of the present clAimA to- gether with the decreed rights would not exceed the amount Nevada has already set aside for the Indians. II 43. Tr. 2988, 2992-93, 3040-41. 44. 376 U.S. at 342. 45. Tr. 3013. 46. Tr. 3050-61. That witness later indicated that 35% for return 80Wl would not apply to all diversioDB in the .talAl and that, accordint to ita contracte, Nevada could divert a total of appronmalAlly 400,000 acre- feet of walAlr. Tr. 3059-60. 47. Tr. 2989. 46. Tr. 3031. 49. Tr. 3022-23. 60. Tr. 3008, 3024-26. 61. Tr. 3019. 62. See Tr. 3019-20; Pro Calif. Esh. 3617; U.S. Esh. 1322; SPEC1AL MAmot's REPoRT at 282. 63. Tr. 3019. 64. Tr. 3049. . 66. Nevada for ita own Project IllI81IJDe8 rstum flows of approximately 36%. Tr. 3061. ThiI figure indicalel that when tha Tribe diverts 6.46 acre-feet per acre that coDBumptive use would be approximately 4.2 acre- 44 45