Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003312 <br /> <br />tinue . to be subject to appropriate adjustment <br />by agreement or decree of this Court in the <br />event that the boundaries of the respective res- <br />ervations are finally determined. <br /> <br />The State Parties concede that when the boundary <br />lines have been tinally determined, the Court should <br />allot the water rights in proportion to the practicably <br />irrigable acreage of additional boundary lands, and <br />urge that the Court should now consider such an allot- <br />ment." They contend, however, that' the boundaries <br />have not been finally determined and that I should <br />make a de novo determination of the boundaries for <br />recommendation to the Court. The issue, then, is <br />whether the Secretarial orders, court judgments, and <br />Act of Congress relied on by the Tribes and the tl'nited <br />States are the sort of final determinations contem- <br />plated by the Court's Decrees. <br />The parties are not in disagreement over the land <br />areas involved in the boundary determinations at is- <br />sue. They are here outlined as presented by the mo- <br />tion of the United States," and not disputed by the <br />State Parties or by the Indian Tribes. <br /> <br />1. Fort Mojave Indian Reservation <br /> <br />Two boundary adjustments affect this Reservation: <br />(1) the restoration of that portion of the so-called Hay <br />and Wood Reserve west of the Blout survey of 1928; <br />and (2) the alijudication of a tract, formerly claimed <br /> <br />Yuma, and Cocopah Reaervations paralleling thosa that can be raisad BI <br />to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River ReoervatioDS under ArtIcle <br />II(D)(6). See Wiacolllin v. lllinoil, 388 U.s. 426 (1967), modilYin8 261 <br />u.s. 696 (1930); N... Jersey v. Ne.. York, 347 U.s. 996 (l9M), modifyi", <br />283 U.s. 805 (1931). Ct. Winters v. United Stala, 'JJ11 U.s. 664 (l908). <br />74. Respollllll of the States 01 Arizona, California, and Nevada, and <br />Other California Defendants to the Motion 01 the United Statoo for <br />Modification of Decree 20.26 (Feb. 1979). <br />76. Motion 01 the United Stala for Modification of Decree and Sup- <br />porting Memorandum 17.23 (Dee. 1978). <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />73. In any event, Article IX, even most narrowly construed, would <br />reoognize the propriety of entertaining claimB as to the Cbemebuevi, Fort <br /> <br />56 <br /> <br />57 <br />