WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oil3318 definitely, as one Secretarial Order has now stood un- challenged for over ten years. The State Parties argue that such analysis would depart from the practice of the prior Master who took evidence on the issue of the boundaries.,oa Such an as- sertion ignores the prior Master's finding that a land department survey was conclusive and not subject. to collateral attack when the issue of a reservation boundary is collaterally in issue.'o, The current Secre- tarial Orders will control his subordinates' actions. If all parties before the prior Master had admi~ted the existence of such orders delimiting a ReservatIOn to a specified number of acres, his ~alysis would. have made unnecessary the taking of eVldence on-the Issue. Neither the power of the Secretary or of the courts to make boundary determinations nor the Court's i~- tent to have these determinations made by such decl- sionmakers if possible, is diminished by the State Par- ties' conte~tion that they did not have their "day in court" before these decisio~akers. I am aware of no claim to land in any of the disputed areas by any of the State Parties. Their interest lies only to the extent that if some other party - or they themselves as ag- grieved persons or intervenors in proceedings else- where now pending or commenced - should success- fully contest the boundaries' as now. fi~ed by Secretarial Order or the title to the land WIthin these boundaries, the allotments of water now ?ought on. be- half of the Tribes would be reduced. Title questions are different from those boundary issues discussed sbove. See Borax Consolidated Ltd v. City of LOB An- geles, 296 U.S, 10, 16-21 (1935); United States v. State Investment Co., 264 U.S. 206 (1924). But the private contestants for title do not present a new problem to this case. This concern can be met by the inclusion in the final decree of the Court of a provision that would reduce the allotment now sought on behalf of the Tribes pro tanto for lands found to be practicably irri- gable which subsequent litigation determines not to be Indian land. The Court previously adopted this method to provide for land associated with the Fort Mojave Reservation and determined to have been con- veyed to California and to the Southern Pacific Rail- road. See 376 U.S. at 345. This procedure, having once gained the Court's approval, provides a common senae solution to the problem of accounting for whatever land within the Interior Department's boundaries ulti- mately may be determined to belong to non-Indiana.'" Such a solution would additionally accommodate any future changes in the boundaries. In sum, I agree with the position put forward by the United States that: It would be wholly arbitrary to consider the Reservation boundaries as they were uD/ferstood ' in 1964 to be sufficiently "determined" to sup- port a specific water allocation calculated on acreage - albeit no court judgment has ever vindicated the survey - but to deny compara- ble affect [sic] to subsequent dependent surveys of the boundaries because no court had ap- proved them.''' 103. I d. at 30. 104. SPECIAL MAS1'E!I's REPORT at 283-87. 105. I note that Wille private litigation continl1ell regardinl thaa' Rasarvationa. See. e.g.. United Stateo Y. Aranson. No. 77-~ (9th Cir. Mar. 30. 1981). withdrawn (Apr. 17. 1981). 106. Motion of t.ba United Stetea for Modillcation of Decree and Sup- porting Memorandum 13-14 (Dee. 1978). 74 75