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

003315

years ago. The Secretary of the Interior hll;8 now made
definitive executive interpretations which sweep aside
inconsistencies and ambiguities. The Secretary has
overruled Interior Department actions that were con-
trary to his determination. If this action had occurred
earlier it to a large extent, would have removed any
choice that the prior Master may have had regarding
the proper boundaries.
Even if the course of the proceedings in this case
did not indicate such a result, the normal treatment of
similar situations reveals that secretarial orders resolv-
ing those problems are appropriate determinations for
adoption by reference in this litigation as a ~e88uring
stick for determining additional irrigable acreage. In
large part we are concerned with actions by the Secre-
tary of Interior" concerning lines surveyed between
the public lands of the United States and Indian reser-
vations whose concern is a matter of the highest prior-
ity to the Uiuted States. The United States, in the ex-
ercise of its plenary power. to regulate Indian affairs, II
may establish Indian reservations by executive order.
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598 (1963)... The
Secretary and the Interior Department by surveys and
other means undoubtedly may determine or correct
boundary lines in public lands. See 43 U.S.C. U 1, 2,
751, 752, 772 (1976). See also 25 U.S.C. !i 176 (1976).
Once determined the boundaries fixed by these

surveys are conclusive in collateral proceedings, be-
cause the matter rests within the jurisdiction of the
executive branch. Boraz Consolidated Ltd. v. City of
Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 16-17 (1935); Stoneroad v.
Sto,:eroad, 158 U.S. 240, 250-52(1895); Knight v.
Umted States Land Association, 142 U.S. 161, 176.78
(1891); Cragin v. Powell. 128 U.S. 691, 698-99 (1888).
In fact, the Court explained that its rationale for the
conclusive effect given to the Interior Department's
survey, was to eliminate the necessity for a landholder
to litigate "in every action at law between itse1f and its
neighbors, . . the question of the accuracy of the sur-
vey." Russell v. Mazwell Land Grant Co., 158 U.S.
253, ~6 (1895).

And in the nature of things a survey made
by . the government must be held conclusive
agaInst any collateral attack in controversies be-
tween individuals. There must be some tribunal
to which final jurisdiction is given in respect to
the matter of surveys, and no other tribunal is
so competent to deal with the matter as the
Land Dep~ent. None other is nllIDed in the
statutes. If In every controversy between neigh-
bors the accuracy of a survey made by the gov-
ernme!1t were open to questioD, interminable
confusion would ensue.

68

[d. at 258. If the Bureau of Land Management, or ita
predecessor the General Land Office, 1946 Reorg. Plan
No.3, 5 403, 11 Fed. Reg. 7876, reprinted in, 43
U.S.C.A. 5 1 note (1964), prepared a survey which the
courts must regard as conclusive, a dissatisfied litigant
might still appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, as
has happened in this case. Stoneroad v. Stoneroad,
158 U.S. 240, 253 (1895); Knight v. United States
Land Association, 142 U.So 161, 177-78 (1891); Snyder

69

90. No contention is raised that the Act of Congress, 88 Stat. 268
(1974), extending the boundary of the Cocopeh Reservation, is subject to
redeterminetion.
91. See, e.g., McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Common, 411 U.S.
164, 168.69 (1973); United Statea v. Kegema, 118 U.S. 376, 38~.82 (1886).
92. In its 1963 Opinion, tha Court counted tha creation of the
Chemehuevi Indian Reservation by the Secretary of the Interior 81 tha
creation of a reservetion by Executive Order. 373 U.S. at 696 n.l00.