WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that fact at this time..' Under these principles, there was no issue for trial when there was no dispute over the acreage covered by the Secretarial Orders."e The State Parties are not necessarily foreclosed from challenging these orders. Rather the questions raised by the State Parties appear more properly raised in a direct proceeding. See Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.S. 691, 699 (1888); Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U.S. 447, 453-55 (l882). Such a conclusion is also suggested by the type of review the. State Parties sought of the 97. Ther. is authority which indicates that Interior Department ec- tion such os surveys cannot limit an Indian reservation to a 8JD8ller area than originally set asid. for tho Indiana. See Northern Pac. RlI. v. United States, 227 U.S. 335, 366.67 (1913); Sekaquaptewa Y. MacDonald, 626 F.2d 113, 118 (9th Cir. 1980); United States Y. Romain., 255 F. 253, 260 (9th Gir. 1919). Perhaps such a reason motivated tha Court to reject tha prior Master's findings that land department surv.ya and other Interior Department action limited permanently tho ."tent of tho ReaervatioD8' water rights. See SPECIAL MASTEII'S REPORT at 274-78, 283.87. Th. Tribes do not now alleg. 'that any lands in tho particular areas arB .rroneoualy excluded from tho ReaervatioDJ by tho Secretarial Orden. 98. Similarly, I conclude that the two court decisioDJ affecting respec- tiyely ihe Cocopah and Fort Mojay. ReservatioD8 should bo treated 811 finel for present purposes. Certainly the Interior Department accepta those boundaries as affected by tho decrees. Any challenga by the State Parties to these boundari.. should proceed in a manner similar to the ! contests regarding the other boundaries. The moat complete articulation I of tbe State Parties' opposition on this isau. was that they ahould bo "free l<l adjudicate tho proper boundaries in a separate action to estab- lish weter righta which depend, in part, on the true reservation bounds- ties." Motion of the State Parties for Leaye to File E%ceptiona to the Memorandum and Report of the Special Master; E%ceptiona; and Open- ing Brief 25 (Noy. 1979). Giyen that such an DlpreBBion is u far u I understand their argument to .nelld, the State Parti..' failure to pro- po.e any perBODJ with a colorable claim l<l the.land makes it appear ~t if thooe decisioD8 arB not final by now the UDlted States and the Tribea mighl need to wait iDdefinileJy f~ a claimant who ia 1I0t precluded to appear. The a1ternatiye of relitigation over the "true boundaries" with the State Parlje. opposing the Tribes makes little BeD88, absent further elplanation, when those perBODJ with a colorable claim have aurrendered. 72 . , 00331: Secretarial Orders in this action where the question was raised collaterally." Perhaps the State Parties are correct in arguing that the Interior Department's ac- tion constitutes agency action creating a legal wrong for which they are entitled to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 u.s.d I 702 (1976). The appropriate standard of review'" and the ques- tion of the appropriate time-bar,e, were questions not resolved here. But it would appear that for such action to be undertaken in the original jurisdiction of the Su- preme Court would be highly unusual. . Moreover, the present inquiry regards water rights oni!. The actions upon which the boundary lands claiD1ll rest should be challenged in a direct action where their validity or correctness may be tested for all purp.oses.,oa Absent such a direct challenge the boundanes stand determined by the various proceed- ings described in the United States' motion. If the boundaries are not accorded finality for purposes of this litigation, the Tribes might be required to wait in. 99. See notes 95-96 '"pra. 100. The United States argued that the arbitrary and capricious stan- dard would epply. M.morendum of tha United Stala on Pre\iminary h- suea 9 (ApT. 1979). The State Parti.. propoeed no atandard but would have lICCOrded the orden far 1_ deference. Tranacript of Formal Hear- i1II in San Francisco 50, 93 (Apr. 17, 1979). 101. Only upon the fultlIIm.nt of the water righls claiJna would the egeney action affect the Stata Parties. See Nuclear Data, lne. v. AEC, 3<< F. Supp. 719, 727 (N.D. IlL 1972). . 102. ~ State Parties esp.... COncern recardIna thaIr .la11diDc to nuaa these ISSues ellawhere. See Motion of the State Parties for Leave to File E%ceptiOD8 to the MelOorandum and Report of the Special Maller. , Esceptiona; and OJl8Dinl Brief 33-3li (Nov. 1&'79). Thole partie, wowd appear to be injured by the llllelley action and thut have Itanding. The 100re doubtful Proposition would appear l<l bo th.ir ability to eatabIiah that the federal government 1DI\Y not dra_ lu boundaries sa they have been drawn. ' , 73