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

003312

The United States claims that approximately 3,500
acres of boundary land on this Reservation are practi-
cably irrigable."

4. Fort Yuma Indian Reservation

By order of December 20, 1978, the Secretary of
the Interior upheld a long-standing claim by the
Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma which had previously
lost the same dispute before the Solicitor of the Inte-
rior Department. This or.der resulted from a subse.
quent argument to the Solicitor who then (1978) is-
sued an opinion in favor of the Tribe. The order
determined that the original boundaries of this Reser-
vation as established in 1884 are the true boundaries."
At the time of the original proceedings in this case, the
boundaries were considered to contain only the area
allotted by trust patents to members of the Tribe. The
Solicitor's Opinion notes that some 25,000 acres are af-
fected by hili ruling. The opinion and order are, how-
ever, subject to a number of third party interests ac-
quired prior to the recent rulings. The United States
claims approximately 5,800 acres of irrigable boundary
lands within this Reservation." The Quechan Tribe
claims that several thousand additional acres of
boundary land are irrigable."

I;

Decree which have affected separate portions of the
Reservation: (1) an area of accretion to the west of the
old boundary; and (2) a tract added by an act of Con-
gress to the south of the accreted lands.
(a) Substantial lands accreted to the western side
of the Reservation because of the giadual western
movement of the Colorado River. The government re-
lies on a final judgment entered May 12, 1975, for its
claim that 883.53 acres have thus been recognized to
be a part of the Reservation'"
(b) By Act of June 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 266, E:ongress
extended the boundaries of the West Cocopah
Reservation.
The United States contends that there is a total of
1,161 acres of practicably irrigable boundary lands in
the Cocopah Reservation."
There is no dispute as to the total number of acres
of llqld that would be added to the several Reserva-
tions if the boundaries, outlined above, are accepted as
finally determined for the purposes of the motion to
adjust the Court's Decree.
I conclude that the determinations that have been
made with respect to the stated boundary changes may
be accepted as final for the purpose of considering ad-
ditional allocations of water rigbts to the Reservations.
This conclusion is limited to that specific purpose. I
make no findings with respect to titles to the land in-
volved, either as to private claim ante or as to any
other contestant over the correctneBB of the boundary
lines. Nor do I consider tbat the acts of the Secretary
or of the courts in private litigation are reB judicata of

I
I
',1

5. Cocopah Indian Reservation

The boundary of the West Cocopah Reservation
has been adjusted by two occurrences since the 1964

83. U.S. Em. 42, Table 8.
84. Quechan Indian Reservation Boundaries, Secretarial Determina-
tion and Directive8, 46 Fed. Reg. 11372.
85. U.S. Exit. 42, Table 10.
86. F.Y. Supp. Em. (Nov. 1981), racord item no. 199.

1fT. Cocopah Tribe or Indians v. Morton. No. Civ-70-673-PHX-WEC
(D. Ariz. May 12, 1976).
88. U.S. Exh. 42, Table 9.

62

63