WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

out which there doubtless was great uncertaiDty, did not occur until 1979, almost fifteen years after the en- try of the initial decree. The present motions for mod- ification antedate the 1979 Decree because in 1977 three Tribes raised this "omitted lands" issue in their motion to intervene." Shortly thereafter in 1978 the two other Tribes filed a similar motion as did the United States." Even though these motions occurred years after the initial decree they were not tardy when viewed in the context of a case that has progressed slowly since the filing of the complaint nearly thirty years ago. Although the case had reached a point where the allocation of water rights was relatively sta- ble they were not irrevocably fixed when tl\e present motions occurred, and thus those motions were not tardy. I recommend that the Court exercise its power under Article IX and reach the merits of the "omitted lands" claim,71 The importance of this litigation to the State' Parties, although impressive, does not outweigh the sense that the Court should conect an unjust reo sul~ The State Parties' reliance does not alter my con- clusion. All parties knew that Article IX might be uti. 69. Motion for Leave to Intervene .. IndiapeD88ble Porti.. by the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Chemehuevi Tribe aDd the QuechaD Tribe. (Dee. 1977). 70. Motion of Colorado River IndiaD Tribee aDd the Cocopeh Indian Tribe for Leave to Intervene (Apr. 1978); Motion of the United Stetea for Modification of Decree (Dee. 1975). 71. This conclusion mak.. unnecessary aDY consideration of the lI1'IU" menta reiaed by the Tribee that due proceu preventa precluaion of them because they were repr..ented in the prior proceedinp by a party not in privity with their interesta. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.s. 32, 41 (UNO); United Stetea v. Truckee.Canon Irrigation Diet., 649 F.2d 1286 (9th CU. 1981). Undoubtedly some of the same conaiderationt ae diecuued in ten would apply to .uch aD inquiry, but I believe my recommendation ehould pr..ently r..t on the narrower ground of Article IX of the 1964 Decree. 54 0033J8 lized to modify the prior decree. Although 'the present claims are not 80 "insignificant" as the United States contends,7J they do appear to be relatively minor ad- justments of the kind which might legitimately be ex- pected in the aftermath of a much larger original case. Similarly the timing of the claims can beat be under- stood in view of the long history of this mammoth case. In my view, fairness to the Tribes prevents the State Parties' absolute reliance upon a modifiable de- cree from foreclosing the omitted lands claims. . B. Final Determination of Reservation Boundaries The 1964 Decree in paragraph II(D)(4) provided for the allocation of water for the benefit of the Colo- rado River Indian Reservation. Similarly, paragraph (5) provided for the allocation for the Fort Mojave In- dian Reservation. The last clause of paragraph (5) con- tained the following language: provided that the quantities fixed in this para- graph and paragraph (4) shall be subject to ap- propriate adjustment by agreement or decree of thiS Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined. . 376 U.S. at 345. The 1979 Decree specified that the latter provision is unaffected by the Court's determi- nation of present perfected rights. 439 U.S. at 421. In addition, the 1979 Decree contAined the following lan- guage similar to paragraph II(D)(6): the quantities fixed in par.,~hs (1) through (5) of Art. II(D) of [the 1964J Decree shall con- 72. See. e.g., United Stetea' Opening Poet-Trial Brief 23 (May 1981). 56