My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />i <br /> <br />] <br /> <br />45 <br />reservations as being to sustain agriculture and it fixed the tribes' <br /> <br />entitlement at an amount sufficient to irrigate all .practicably irrigable <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />acreage <br /> <br />h ,46 <br />on t e reservat~ons~ <br /> <br />This enabled quantification of reserved <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />rights, facilitating planning by the tribes and by other river water users. <br /> <br />Yet uncertainties remain. <br /> <br />J- <br /> <br />In order to rectify what they perceived to be errors and changed circuc- <br /> <br />stances since 1963 the tribes, which had been represented only by the United <br /> <br />r~ <br /> <br />States, recently sought to intervene in and to reopen Arizona v. California. <br /> <br />With the support of the United States on most points, the tribes requested an <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />expanded allocation of water rights, presenting evidence that lands had been <br /> <br />.-- <br /> <br />erroneously omitted from the 1964 calculation of practicably irrigable acreage <br /> <br />and that other lands have since been determined to lie within their reserva- <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />47 <br />tions. <br /> <br />The Court allowed the tribes to intervene but it refused to expand their <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />entitlement based on the government's failure to claim certain lands as .prac- <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />ticably irrigable" in the earlier litigation. The Court said that there is a <br /> <br />strong interest in finality" where "certainty...with respect to water rights <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />48 <br />in the Western United States. is at stake. By invoking this policy the <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />Court closed the door on about two-thirds of the claims to additional irriga- <br />49 <br />ble acreage. The Court did allow for enlarged entitlements in the future <br /> <br />when boundary disputes left open in the 1964 decree are finally decided by a <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />court. This effectively continues uncertainty as to water rights for several <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />thousand irrigable acres. <br /> <br />The Indian rights have not yet been fully utilized.50 This is partly due <br /> <br />to a notorious lack of diversion and distribution facilities.51 As Indian use <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />continues to expand it could cut into the ability of the states to take the <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />river water they need. The prospect of the tribes developing needed faciii- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />- lb - <br /> <br />'1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.