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

003320

between the military and'the hay and wood res-
ervations bounded on the west by the Colorado
River and on the east by a line running from
station No. 1 of the hay and wood reserve to
station No. 1 of the military reserve.

water rights.m In the present proceedings the State
Parties' expert testified that he could not determine
the status of those then-claimed areas west of the
boundary as drawn on the map. 111 And the United
States asserts that it cannot solve this riddle either.u,
The State Parties, however, do not cIaim that any
acreage was erroneously considered in 1964 to be
within the Reservation boundaries. Thus, the present
contest concerns only presently-claimed water rights
on specified acres. These acres lie to the west of the
boundary shown on the old exhibits. But those acres
lie east of the boundary shown on the present e~bits.
The United States apparently believes the boundary
lies further west than was shown on the older exhibits.
This dispute concerns the relative correctness of
the various depictions of the western boundary as it
was originally set by the River. H the State Parties are
correct, the boundary lies to the east of the present
river channel and follows the boundary shown on the
prior exhibits. H the United States is correct, the
boundary lies roughly along the western edge of sev-
eral islands which lie closest to the eastern bank of the
River as shown on the prior exhibits.11O A boundary
marked by a river is not necessarily constant. Depend-
ing on the type of river movement, the land area
within a legal boundary may increase, decrease, or re-
main constant.
I have no basis for deciding precisely where the
proper boundary now lies, because there is no evidence
in the record of the River's former location(s) or of the

The Associate Solicitor of the Interior Department has
stated that: "This 'intermediate tract' clearly belongs
to the tribe."1I< That statement seems indisputably
correct but our present inquiry concerns the more
murky question of the proper location of that tract's
western boundary along "the Colorado River."
The dispute between the United States and the
State Parties,over this tract involves a puzzling set of
facts. The United States in the hearings before the
prior Master introduced into evidence maps purport-
ing to show the Reservation boundaries as well as acre-
age clajmed to be irrigable.1II Remarkably, some of the
acreage on the Intermediate Tract for which water
rights were requested, as shown on the maps, lies
outside the boundaries as sl;1own on the same maps""
Although the State Parties objected to the United
States' claims concerning the boundaries of other parts
of the Reservation, the Intermediate Tract apparently
suffered no similar attack and even those claimed ar-
eas outside the western boundary apparently received

MAY 14, 1855 TO JULY I, 1912 12 (1912) (hereinafter cited 88 ExeC';'tive
Orders). The 1890 order and accompanying papers apparently omitted
mention of the Intermediate Tract although the two other parcebo clearly
became Indian land. This oversight waa remedied in 1903 when the tract
was recognized to be a part of the Indian Reservation. Id.
114. Memorandum, April 12, 1974, Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs .
to Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, Boundary of the Fort
Mojave Hay and Wood Reaerve 6b D.l.
115. See Pro U.S. Exhs. 1317, 1318.
116. See id.

117. Compare Pr. U.s. Ezha. 1317. 1318. 1320. 1321, 1322 with Pr. .
Calif. Exha. 3515, 3518. 3517.
118. Tr. 5299-300.
liB. United States' Post-Trial Opening Brief 11. (May IBSll.
120. See Pr. U.S. Em. 1318.

78

79