Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0033lC <br /> <br />with respect to either federally-owned parcel, do estab- <br />lish conclusively what' has always been the actual <br />boundary. 25 U.S.C. g 176 (1976); Pueblo of Taos II. <br />Andrus, 475 F. Supp. 359, 367 n.7 (D.D.C. 1979). Cf. <br />French II. United States, 49 Ct. CL 337, 346-47 (1914) <br />(Interior Department surveys concluSively determine <br />boundaries of Indian reservations when such a ques- <br />tion is collaterally in issue at trial). See also 42 Op. <br />Att'y Gen. 441, 452-53 (1972). ' <br /> <br />The State Parties asserted only that a present re- <br />view of the Secretarial Orders by a Mastel' and the <br />Court would prove them to be invalid or incorrect be- <br />cause the Secretary was wrong in his determinations. N <br />Although the federal government, through properly is. <br />sued Secretarial Orders," may concede, for all pur- <br />poses, that the lands are held in trust (or the Tribes, <br />rather than held in some other federal capacity, the <br />State Parties ask the Court to order the federal gov- <br />ernment to draw its boundary to exclude these lands, <br />at least for the purpose of water rights. Such a conclu- <br />sion seems patently unreasonable. Under these circum- <br />stances, the Secretarial Orders and the surveys which <br />conform thereto, should be taken as legally operative <br />authority determining the boundaries between the <br />Reservations and other federal public land. Because <br />the issue of boundaries arises as a collateral matter in <br />this lawsuit the boundaries drawn by the Interior De- <br />partment should be accepted as conclusively showing <br /> <br />v. Sickles, 98 U.S. 203, 2l0-12 (1878); Wasserman II. <br />Udal!, 234 F. Supp. 651, 654 (D.D.C. 1964). See also <br />Boesche v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472, 483 (1963). The Secre- <br />tary and Interior Department may even resurvey and <br />redetermine the boundaries. See Lane II. Darlington, <br />249 U.S. 331, 333-34 (1919); 43 U.S.C. f 771, 772 <br />(1976). In general, these are precisely the sorts of de- <br />terminations and proceedings which have occurred <br />within the Interior Department in this case. <br />Under these principles the Secretarial Orders now <br />in effect determine the boimdaries for purposes of this <br />case. The State Parties contend that the Interior De- <br />partment'lI power to make a "land survey is far differ- <br />ent from resolving a complex boundary dispute involv- <br />, ing questions of law and fact.'ovI But such a statement <br />ignores the nature of the dispute, if any. As the parties <br />hllve argued the case the boundaries in question sepa- <br />rate parcels of federal public land. The purpose o( the <br />boundaries is, to designate the extent of land within <br />the several Indian Reservations as created by the (ed- <br />eral government." The Secretary of the Interior whose <br />duty it is to determine the boundaries of Indian land <br />I may issue orders which, while not reapportioning land <br /> <br />93. Response or State Parties to the Motion of the United States for <br />Modification of Decree 15 (Feb. 1979). <br />94. There hava been frequent aasenions in this ...e thaI the pres- <br />ently-questioned boundari.. divide only parc:ela of federal public land. <br />i See generally Trenacript of Oral Argument in Supreme Court, Ariz01lJJ ... <br />Colifornia 62 (Oct. 10, 1978); Motion of the United States for Modifica- <br />lion of Decree and Supporting Memorendum 13 (Dee. 1978); Special <br />Meeler'e Memorendum end Report On Preliminary Ieau.. 39-40 (Alii. <br />2S, 1979). The Stele Parties have not questinned theaa _rtiona in any <br />menner tbat would clearly put ouch en iaauo in contest. See Reaponae of <br />State Porti.. to tho Motion of tha United Steteo for Modification of De- <br />cree 11-25 (Fob. 1979); Motion of State Porti.. for Leave to File Excep- <br />liona to Memorandum and Report of Special Maater; Exceptions; and <br />Opening Brief 29-30 (Nov. 1979). <br /> <br />95. Reaponse' of Stete Partiea to Motion of the United States for <br />Modification of Decree 13 (Feb. 1979) (invalidity); MemorendlDD of the <br />Urban Agond.. re tho Indian Reaervation Boundary Quoation 6-10 (Apr. <br />1979) (correctneao). Se. Tranacript of Formal Heariq in Sen Franc:iaco, <br />Arizona Y. California 80, 91-103 (Apr. 17, 1979). <br />96. Tranacript of Formal Hearing in San Franciaoo, Arizona v. Cali- <br />fornia 80. 93 (Apr. 17. 1979); <br /> <br />70 <br /> <br />71 <br />